Lying

[Joy]

^ Not all sins are equal in the Bible. I'd post more but I'm on my wii >.>..... A sin is wrong but there are differences in degrees and situations and mental reasoning. For example... you might lie spur of the moment but its may not be something you planned on doing, whereas homosexuality is a choice (the feelings may not be but actual homosexuality is a premeditated unnatural or as many call it "alternative" choice). I'll give my reasons later as I said.... on the wii >.>

There's a reason I didnt get into the homo/bi thread because I cant read minds or hearts so I am not the judge of anyone.

Ill post my reasons... but I guess if this turns into a homo/bi = sin debate I wont waste my time on unproductive bickerings.

Lying is one of the ten commandments.

The ten commandments > The passage(s) in the bible that says homosexuality is bad.

That book also states that a woman must be confined for a week after their menstrual cycle. Why aren't we doing this?

Pho is right, in the end. The fact that homosexuality is "evil" and lying isn't is because people have a bias against homosexuality. They don't care that God says it's bad, it's just a coincidence that it does. It just makes people go "eww".

"Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone."

Anyone? Anyone?

 

[Nyangoro]

Lying is one of the ten commandments.

The ten commandments > The passage(s) in the bible that says homosexuality is bad.

That book also states that a woman must be confined for a week after their menstrual cycle. Why aren't we doing this?

Umm, not really. That is the mentality of cults, who take parts of something they like, and ignore/alter the rest. Christians believe that the entire Bible is the word of God, and is therefore the absolute authority on morality, lifestyle, etc. So, it doesn't really matter "where" or "how often" God says something. He should only have to say it once.

Pho is right, in the end. The fact that homosexuality is "evil" and lying isn't is because people have a bias against homosexuality. They don't care that God says it's bad, it's just a coincidence that it does. It just makes people go "eww".

If by that you mean it is also a cultural issue, then I would certainly agree. However, please try and avoid making the assumption that everyone who uses the Bible to support their beliefs also doesn't care that God said it (sorry if that isn't what you meant, but that is what it sounded like to me).

"Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone."

Anyone? Anyone?

Expressing how you feel towards something, and judging/condemning a person for it are two different things.

 

[square-enix]

why do you guys insist on doing this =< You ask a question... I answer, then you COMPLETELY FORGET that I was responding that that immediate question .... pick at my answer, and then turn it around and say something else like I knew that was what you were thinking? >.> Im not a mind reader guys.

What are you on about?
It goes like so
You say something
You're asked for evidence
You're evidence is refuted
You don't bother to answer and drop out of the discussion.
When someone doesn't bother to refute your evidence, you're more than happy to post.
That's how it goes.

Anyway, I knew a debate would brew. However, I stated very clearly from the start, that if the debate went off into the homosexual/bisexual tangent, then I would not participate. I answered the main question that you asked. Then you asked me to clear up some minor things after I did that.

Except no one is debating homosexuality. It's used in comparison to lying. Why is homosexuality condemned more than lying. That's no going off on a tangent. And no, you didn't answer the main question, which was "Will you join me in my crusade to stop the most common, and as such, the most threatening sin on God's green Earth?"
What you were asked to clear up was your claim that "Not all sins are equal in the Bible"

Now the posts that I made are now being pulled apart even more and attacked at every corner. I don’t have to respond to those, for they will not really add to the productiveness or answering of the main/opening post of the thread.

You won't respond at your convenience you mean. You said that "Not all sins are equal in the Bible" [1] The entire point of this thread is to discuss why lying isn't harped on more than other sins even though there are dozens of passages on it. You used "Not all sins are equal in the Bible" as a defense for lying. "A sin is wrong but there are differences in degrees and situations and mental reasoning. For example... you might lie spur of the moment but...." - Forever Atlas

So, no, you're wrong that responding to my post won't add "productiveness" because my post is refuting your claim that there are different degrees of sin.

You "don't" have to do anything you don't feel like doing, so don't bother using that defense. The point is that you made a claim and provided your "proof". That was than refuted and you "don't feel like responding because you have a life"
If you have such a problem with debates, refrain from making any claims you can't back up or don't want to defend.
This is a public forum and you're free to give your insight, not make groundless claims. There's the difference you don't understand.

You can go into a Barack Obama thread and say "I like his ideas about health care. He plans to do such and such" and than there's "Barack Obama's going to betray us to the Muslims"

. You yourself know that no matter what I post, you will have something to say contrary to it.

That's not true. If you actually bothered making truthful claims and backing those up with relevant sources. I'm not contrary for the sake of being contrary. I'm contrary because you make groundless statements and pass it off as fact. You assume far too much.

If you claimed that the sky appears blue because light reflects off water molecules (and had sources), I wouldn't waste my time being contrary simply for the sake of it.
Saying that "Not all sins are equal" and providing sources is a good start. unfortunately, the sources/interpretations you provided made no sense. And I explained the errors to you. Me taking the time to explain to you why your sources don't make sense is anything but being contrary for the sake of it.

I’m not saying its bad… but its not really needed. It will just cause more “anger” if you may, to rise up in people who disagree causing bigger rifts in this already torn society and forum. It is debates like this on a major level that cause the divisions in society. After all, if people kept their ideas to themselves or did not respond to everything that they don’t agree with, wouldn’t you agree that things would be a bit more quiet as to debates and conflicts?

No one is angry. The assumptions really need to stop. Again, the main point right now, is that you willing involved yourself in discourse, and opt out when someone questions you. Why bother coming in at all?

Why thank you

From this quote one, why did you bother responding? The post "You're more than free to believe that, but none of the retorts in....most issues." was made to kazukifafner and in no way involves you. I don't believe I even addressed you.

You didn't want to respond to my refute post [2]which was actually addressed to you, because you didn't "think" it was important or involved the thread (which it does) but you bother to respond to the post that addresses kazukifafner [3] even though it has no bearing on the main thread at all. Hypocrisy, yeah?
I'll indulge you anyway.

Quite…. You seem to be on track so far.

Thing is... the other threads I can enjoy, learn stuff in maybe, help others...

And how exactly do you "learn stuff" when you don't admit you're wrong, when you don't defend your claims, and only post in threads that people agree with you?

hmm... and not be attacked in... the threads that I know tempers will flare up and i will be attacked.. I ignore the claims and just carry on.

Ah, so we get to the problem. You believe you were attacked because your claim was refuted.
So,
Forever Atlas: It's 1000 degrees in Florida
square-enix: Umm no. Look at the weather.com
*Forever Atlas feels he's been attacked and refuses to respond/defend his claim*
I'm spot on, aren't I?

Man, I love when you folks play the "I'm peaceful and don't want to get attacked" card but you're the only one so far that's actually made personal attacks.

Ah see? I figured some of you were sensitive. I guess you missed my apology before hand because I knew some of you would take it harshly… but it was far from an insult.

So, did you actually read my post or did you cut/paste the part that was beneficial to you? Here's the whole thing.
"because he insults us and then presumes that we are going to insult him by saying he's not "man enough". Which we've done neither. But he has, not that the insults are harmful, but all the same."

Lol…… I wouldn’t go there, for I could pull out quite a few… links and all buddy

By all means. Show us the posts in this thread have said you weren't "man enough"
You were the one that said "Now you bitter people can go on and talk about me not being man enough, not having any "comeback" etc etc...."
No one said anything similar before or after, but you're more than welcome. Make another groundless claim. You'll actually prove my point by doing so.

And yet everyone thinks they are correct hmmm… but there can only be one truth… so which one is it? I guess we’ll have to wait and see?

Except only one guy is usually doing the bullshitting about his interpretation of the bible.

WAAAIT a minute! Haha I AM guy B aren’t I? You little sly devil you!

No, you're not guy B. You're not that important. Again, the post you responded to wasn't meant for you, while dodging the other post that was intended for you.

No problem, I am now… however not to the other posts, for it will just cause more upset and disruption… we wont agree on this topic… that’s that. You know it, and I know it… what benefit is there to continuing. If you can tell me the benefit I’d love to hear it

So I put my input on the main topic... I will not add any more to the getting more off topic or getting into topics that other threads are already made for.

You won't respond to the other posts, meaning the ones that refute your claims. You did respond to the post that had nothing to do with you.
Good. We're all clear on that.
I already explained in this same post how nothing is causing anyone to be upset (except yourself, maybe) or causing disruption. You're only assuming that.
No one is asking you to agree on anything.
We're asking why you come into discussion threads only to post groundless claims, and not defend them.
I'm asking you why you don't defend your cited sources (Insight on the Scriptures) if you're sure that they're correct in saying that there are different degrees of sins.
Unless of course, you no longer agree but don't want to admit you're wrong.

what benefit is there to continuing. If you can tell me the benefit I’d love to hear it

So I put my input on the main topic... I will not add any more to the getting more off topic or getting into topics that other threads are already made for.

Your input on the main topic was that "Not all sins are equal" which is the main topic, and you won't be defending the claim any further. Good to know.

You said that you wanted to "learn stuff" so I'll assume that's the benefit of you getting into any debate. Well, by you attempting to defend Insight into the Scriptures (which was your cited source, and the thing I attempted to refute), we'll eventually find out that

1) Different degrees of lying do not exist
2) Different degrees of sins do not exist (because you provided no source for it)
From learning that, you'll know not to make those claims again which is a benefit for everyone.

or we'll learn that

1) Different degrees of lying do exist (We can't learn that different degrees of sin exist because no source was provided for it)
From this, we'll benefit by knowing that lying is ok, to a degree and that's why all Evangelicals refrain from harping on it.

What we learn will depend on which of us is correct.

 

[Forever Atlas]

^ lol........ Read the first and second page dude.

Then tell me again that I didnt respond to the OP.

Then if you do go on to tell me I didnt... then not one person did and your point is thus rendered worthless.

Ya know what? The next post... Im going to do something special for you

 

[square-enix]

I've made my case. Will you join me in my crusade to stop the most common, and as such, the most threatening sin on God's green Earth?

Link me to where you answered this.

Then if you do go on to tell me I didnt... then not one person did and your point is thus rendered worthless.

And which of my points would that be?

Oh, and for the record, you didn't respond to anything I typed
I'm still waiting on "Lol…… I wouldn’t go there, for I could pull out quite a few… links and all buddy" and of course, you attempting to change the subject

 

[Sephiros_TH]

Well this topic is going away from the main point so let us try to steer it back, what do you say?

As for my two cents, if lying really is a sin then wouldn't that make humans sinners by nature? according to a study done by scientists in Britain in 2005 Children learn to lie between the ages of 4 and 6 generally around the fifth birthday. the children then begin to lie to avoid specific situations namely trouble and dangerous situations. The study concluded that children learn to lie as the logical part of their brain develops. The study also claimed that lies are a natural way for humans to avoid unwanted situations just as the adrenal glads produce adrenaline in fight or flight situations or the body reacts through reflex arcs. lies are a natural part of the maturing logic of a human being and are inseparable from human nature. On this notion would it be not worth evaluating exactly what a sin is and why exactly they are wrong? because it seems that many sins a natural parts of the human being and were perhaps designed to suppress instincts that are no longer valid in a society? what are your thoughts?

 

[Nyangoro]

^Well, if you look at sin from a Christian perspective, then humans ARE sinners by nature. Even without that perspective, all you have to do is look around to see that humans aren't perfect.

Also, take into consideration that people get upset when they find out you lied to them, and causes severe problems (trust is, after all, a staple in relationships of any kind).

I think all humans have an inborn knowledge of "sin" (as a Christian). Some say that morality is instilled by environment, but I think it is to the opposite effect. I believe that the environment (parents, peers, culture, media, etc.) actually tries (and often succeeds) to override our inborn morality. This is all conjecture, of course, but the idea of "desensitizing" could be used to support this idea.

 

[Phoenix]

Top off my head, I could think of at least 5 different situations where lying would be good.

I think all humans have an inborn knowledge of "sin" (as a Christian). Some say that morality is instilled by environment, but I think it is to the opposite effect. I believe that the environment (parents, peers, culture, media, etc.) actually tries (and often succeeds) to override our inborn morality. This is all conjecture, of course, but the idea of "desensitizing" could be used to support this idea.

History paints a different picture.

 

[Wehrmacht]

Top off my head, I could think of at least 5 different situations where lying would be good.

I assume one of them is the nazi example you're so fond of.

 

[Sephiros_TH]

^Well, if you look at sin from a Christian perspective, then humans ARE sinners by nature. Even without that perspective, all you have to do is look around to see that humans aren't perfect.

Also, take into consideration that people get upset when they find out you lied to them, and causes severe problems (trust is, after all, a staple in relationships of any kind).

I think all humans have an inborn knowledge of "sin" (as a Christian). Some say that morality is instilled by environment, but I think it is to the opposite effect. I believe that the environment (parents, peers, culture, media, etc.) actually tries (and often succeeds) to override our inborn morality. This is all conjecture, of course, but the idea of "desensitizing" could be used to support this idea.

thats an interesting view on it but there are some loopholes. For example one of the most inhumane things in society today is murder or the taking of a human life yet not so long ago human sacrifice was commonplace. Ancient China, Ancient Egypt, The great civilizations of Mezo America, the kingdoms of Africa. If morality is inborn why does it seem to change over time. It is also a well studied concept that morality is the product of society and that the natural human state is overridden by societies obsession with morality.

 

[Nyangoro]

^That's the touchy thing about this. Both ways are possible, it just depends on how you interpret the scenarios. For example, while your point about human sacrifice is completely valid, I could say that the society's culture of "appeasing the gods" (which is usually where that comes from) could have overrided the inborn morality. Also, being a Christian, I believe the world (and humanity) is fallen, so even if it is inborn, we still might not act on it.

While I doubt this could ever be 100% proven (probably too many variables), I'd be interested to see a comparison of how people react to robbery, rape, murder of a loved one, etc, between countries/cultures; because I think that the feeling of resentment and regret could possibly stem from inborn morality.

PS: Sorry for not quoting, I'm on a browser that limits the number of characters I can type at a time.

 

[Phoenix]

You do realize that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, right? He called it off at the end, but it proved that the idea of human sacrifice was at least fairly accepted.

While I doubt this could ever be 100% proven (probably too many variables), I'd be interested to see a comparison of how people react to robbery, rape, murder of a loved one, etc, between countries/cultures; because I think that the feeling of resentment and regret could possibly stem from inborn morality.

What does losing a loved one have to do with morality? You loved the person, you didn't want to lose the person, this has nothing to do with morality. A better question is how does a third party feel about the event, and I can tell you that rape was part of the spoils of war in the ancient world. You could be counted as a good person, and you had no problems owning slaves and raping the women from the losing villages. This went on for a very long time. Did you think the Jewish people cared when God sent the last plague to kill all of the Egyptian firstborn? No, it was a different moral code.

The Bible is full of God punishing someone's descendants for the crimes of an ancestor. This is unthinkable in today's world, but it made sense in the ancient world.

 

[Nyangoro]

^God tested Abraham to see if he had faith, which he did. That doesn't prove that it is accepted in the Bible.

That's why you need to know the 1st party's view; to get down to personal feelings and raw emotions towards things that directly affected them. Seeing a third party's reaction would unavoidably bring culture into it, which I think needs to be removed in order to determine it.

Ancient World culture =/= Modern World culture. My viewpoint can still be applied.

 

[frisson]

I have never lied in my entire lifetime. =)




Anyway, the general gist I'm getting from this thread is that there is no religious proof that homosexuality exceeds lying as a sin in terms of severity and that homophobes attempt to use religious text as justification for their dislike towards homosexuals when in reality the dislike is derived from personal reasons.

And as far as the thread has progressed, nobody has gone so far as to disprove the above statement. Just endless prevarication and "lolworthy" examples of stupidity.

Even now, in a thread labeled "Lying" people just can't help themselves.

 

[Nyangoro]

Well, all sins ARE equally severe. I suppose you could look at that as "all sins are as bad as lying" or "all sins are as bad as homosexuality" or "all sins are as bad as murder" or any other sin you prefer to use.

 

[Phoenix]

So am I to understand that you view a rapist, a murderer, a liar and a homosexual all in the same light?

 

[risingfalls]

Personally, I don't.
However, the way I was taught, all of them have sinned equally in the eyes of God.
=/

 

[Phoenix]

Why do you personally don't? Surely there must be a reason why you do not view all sins as equal, even if you were taught so. Why does rape seem so much horrible to a human being than a lie?

 

[risingfalls]

Not quite sure.
Even though I believe, as part of religion, that all sins are equal, and will be judged equally, I see some sins as more consequential than others.
If someone raped my friend, I'd think of that as a lot worse than someone lying to her, and thus I'd want it judged based on the impact of their actions.
And I suppose that I've been influenced by laws and such.

 

[Stavvy]

So am I to understand that you view a rapist, a murderer, a liar and a homosexual all in the same light?

No, but God does. . .