An article "The church is killing its gay kids"

[chansen]

Hi RitaTG

No answer tells me you agree that we are all born in sin with a sin nature -----and this is what is so important for the young ones to know

This is all sorts of messed up.

Christianity has always had a good handle on the guilt trip. Now if you're in the LGBTQ camp, you get a double dose of guilt. Perfect. That won't screw with kids' heads at all.

---by telling the young ones of the LGBTQ community they are Blessed by God from birth to be the way they are is deceptive and lying in my view ----Only The Truth will set you free ----and the truth is Jesus is their only way to be set free ----all people are shaped in Iniquity and born sinners no one is exempt ---This is if you believe in a Christ---ian God -----other Religions I can't speak for ------Learning how to deal with the Iniquity and sin nature is important to be confident in who we are as people -----again my view ------

Peace and Blessing to you

The way to deal with "sin nature"? Laugh at it. Some idiot wrote that thousands of years ago, most likely as a tool to keep people in line. So, when you hear "sin nature", the best response is laughter. Don't take it seriously. It is the desperate bleating of a faith in its death throes that cares more about its own survival than yours.

 

[Luce NDs]

Is life, laughter, considering the brevity compared to the other way of thinking? The Hebrews called this death/wisdom since that's where all the beta thoughts appear to subsist ... sublimely?

Partisan wisdom under the laws of the church where knowledge is denied ... then later love is said to be banned in the temple leaving a head-hate? Thus the head-man should be bought down ... the descent of intelligence gone wrong ...

 

[airclean33]

Hi Chansen -- First let me thank you for giving us you"r Informed opinion. On a Living GOD you don"t believe in. I was wondering if" you would mine telling us , what you as an atheist think or believe, what happened"s to those who Die. After all we are talking of young ones who kill them self"s .

 

[Luce NDs]

Possibly they drift off into that thought domain we call mind/soul/psyche ... some excessively emotional people do not believe in the existence of such a domain ... they have no room for mind ... and thus the condition of pathologic psyche ... psychopaths on the rebound? This is the comeback in the haunting when they've departed their own psyche and taken up residence in another's soul ... how concepts can haunt even the psychopathic types ...

Then as a consequence people like me wish to know where intelligence goes when thinking people die ... out of here ... in myth?

 

[airclean33]

Thanks LuceNDs--Thanks for posting in writing I can understand.Are you now saying your an Atheist?

 

[Seeler]

Rita, I've been pondering the issue, somewhat in a quandray, trying to see all sides.
Having lived for over 70 years, I have known people who committed suicide, and the people they left behind. Those close to them tend to be filled with guilt. Where did I go wrong? What could I have done differently? What signs did I misss? If only ... And so often the answer is "It's not your fault." "You didn't cause it; you couldn't fix it."
Two sisters - each with three or four kids - their second children, girls, are near the same age; cousins growing up together, attending the same school, sharing the same friends, having sleep-overs, giggling over plans for 'when I'm grown up'. One girl becomes a teacher - grade one at a local school. The other drops out of university, writes poetry, moves to a larger city. One girl develops a brain tumor. The other is diagnosed as bi-polar. Two years later they are both gone. And no one at fault for either death. But one of the sisters gets sympathy and understanding. The other feels a degree of questioning and condemnation.
The reasons for suicide are varied and complicated. Person A is not responsible for what Person B does.
And yet -
and yet -
when we see patterns - when we see suicide (or violence or murder) particularly prevalent among a segment of the population (gay or trans kids; or Inuit or First Nations kids; or any other identifable group) we have to ask Why? Is there something in the system (church, school, community, society) that drives these people to self-destruction? What causes them to lose hope? to despair? to anger and hatred, whether it is turned outward to those closest to them or turned to themselves - what causes them to self-destruct? How can we change the picture? How can we help?

 

[chansen]

Hi Chansen -- First let me thank you for giving us you"r Informed opinion. On a Living GOD you don"t believe in. I was wondering if" you would mine telling us , what you as an atheist think or believe, what happened"s to those who Die. After all we are talking of young ones who kill them self"s .

My opinion was about the ridiculousness of "sin nature", and how the best way to combat the negative effects of the concept is to laugh in the face of it. You're providing an opinion about a "living" God, but as always, it's just a big claim made with empty words.

What happens when we die? The brain stops functioning. We lose consciousness, and the lights go out. Irreversibly. There is just no reason to believe in anything more fantastic than that. Any claim beyond that is based in either wishful thinking or fear of death. Death sucks, but it's not like we have any reason to believe we can escape it. I'd rather be honest with myself and with others, than spend what time I do have subscribing to something so baseless and clearly outside any reasonable level of probability, just because I don't like reality.

 

[revsdd]

Really, the basic concept of the sinful nature isn't that ridiculous, although I understand that the terminology is problematic for you. The secular equivalent would simply be "nobody's perfect." Both are just ways of saying that humans do things that we know we shouldn't do. What you find ridiculous is the source of what's right and what's wrong. Is there a standard set by an external source (ie, God) or is it an internal sense of right and wrong.

 

[Jaebius]

Really, the basic concept of the sinful nature isn't that ridiculous, although I understand that the terminology is problematic for you. The secular equivalent would simply be "nobody's perfect." Both are just ways of saying that humans do things that we know we shouldn't do. What you find ridiculous is the source of what's right and what's wrong. Is there a standard set by an external source (ie, God) or is it an internal sense of right and wrong.

These days in our postmodern world it seems most people believe in subjective morality, and want to choose for themselves what's right and wrong for them. A few others and I still believe that morality is objectively set by God.

 

[revsdd]

These days in our postmodern world it seems most people believe in subjective morality, and want to choose for themselves what's right and wrong for them. A few others and I still believe that morality is objectively set by God.

I would agree that "morality" is objectively set by God. Having said that the problem is that even the people of God can't agree on what that standard is. Thus, disagreement on homosexuality. Thus, absolute pacifism or the Just War Theory. Etc., etc.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Really, the basic concept of the sinful nature isn't that ridiculous, although I understand that the terminology is problematic for you. The secular equivalent would simply be "nobody's perfect." Both are just ways of saying that humans do things that we know we shouldn't do. What you find ridiculous is the source of what's right and what's wrong. Is there a standard set by an external source (ie, God) or is it an internal sense of right and wrong.

But here there's a clearly distinction made in this "nobody's perfect" concept, in this thread, and in theological discourse.

Nobody's perfect, but it has been claimed, upthread that LGBTQ people are uniquely imperfect in their identity or sexuality in ways that are NOT the case for cisgendered straight people. And these defects of identity or orientation were caused by a specific historical event in a real garden named Eden. THAT is what being claimed here.

 

[Jaebius]

I would agree that "morality" is objectively set by God. Having said that the problem is that even the people of God can't agree on what that standard is. Thus, disagreement on homosexuality. Thus, absolute pacifism or the Just War Theory. Etc., etc.

Yes, that's where all the fun stuff like interpretation principles, hermeneuticals, etc. come into play.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

That's what I see happening too @BetteTheRed - people claiming, we're all born sinners but "you are bigger sinners therefore we have to single you out as a group and point out how much bigger sinners you are than we are because we know we're sinners but we won't aknowledge any sin involved in telling you why you don't belong in our church unless you become like us, because God says so.(even though Jesus didn't say so)." but basically just won't flat out say "We're homophobic/ transphobic and maybe that's our problem to admit and get over."

 

[revsdd]

But here there's a clearly distinction made in this "nobody's perfect" concept, in this thread, and in theological discourse.

Nobody's perfect, but it has been claimed, upthread that LGBTQ people are uniquely imperfect in their identity or sexuality in ways that are NOT the case for cisgendered straight people. And these defects of identity or orientation were caused by a specific historical event in a real garden named Eden. THAT is what being claimed here.

Some make that claim. I don't.

 

[Jaebius]

That's what I see happening too @BetteTheRed - people claiming, we're all born sinners but "you are bigger sinners therefore we have to single you out as a group and point out how much bigger sinners you are than we are because we know we're sinners but we won't aknowledge any sin involved in telling you why you don't belong in our church unless you become like us, because God says so.(even though Jesus didn't say so)." but basically just won't flat out say "We're homophobic/ transphobic and maybe that's our problem to admit and get over."

Wow Cousin, that was a long sentence. But yes, that's how we Christians tend to be. We'd prefer to point out what we consider to be the sins of others than deal with our own sins. If we can keep the focus on how wicked we believe other people are, we can comfortably hide from our own cruelties. An easy way we've found to do that is to develop a thriving us vs. them mentality. We see ourselves as next to perfect and point out others to be more sinful than sin.

 

[revsdd]

I've also heard folks from the non-religious crowd use "nobody's perfect" in a similar way. Someone makes a mistake then says a sort of contemptuous "nobody's perfect," which comes across often as having an unspoken " but I'm a lot closer to perfect than you!" Another sign of either our "sinful nature," or that "nobody's perfect."

 

[chansen]

Really, the basic concept of the sinful nature isn't that ridiculous, although I understand that the terminology is problematic for you. The secular equivalent would simply be "nobody's perfect." Both are just ways of saying that humans do things that we know we shouldn't do. What you find ridiculous is the source of what's right and what's wrong. Is there a standard set by an external source (ie, God) or is it an internal sense of right and wrong.

It's not the same. I can buy that "nobody's perfect", but Christianity doesn't stop there. Christianity posits that somebody *is* perfect, and that this perfect deity is not happy with your imperfections. That it cursed you with.

 

[revsdd]

It's not the same. I can buy that "nobody's perfect", but Christianity doesn't stop there. Christianity posits that somebody *is* perfect, and that this perfect deity is not happy with your imperfections. That it cursed you with.

Which is what I said. Your problem isn't with the concept of the sinful nature. It's with the concept of God.

 

[chansen]

But it also says that what is good is set by God, which is an idea, when paired with a rather imperfect book like the bible which is open to incredible differences in interpretation, that sends people to duck and cover.

 

[Jaebius]

But it also says that what is good is set by God, which is an idea, when paired with a rather imperfect book like the bible which is open to incredible differences in interpretation, that sends people to duck and cover.

There can certainly be a wide variety of interpretations, as can be seen here at WC2. Curious though chansen, what makes you think the Bible is imperfect - and rather imperfect at that. How do you think it would be different if it was perfect?