(It is really the only way that makes sense to me. You start with the given that God is infinite and loving - 'cuz what's the point otherwise - then everything else has to make sense with that. If it doesn't make sense with that, we are probably understanding it wrong.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is that stated in the Bible? Now that I think about I do seem to vaguely remember the idea that every soul, including those of people who have died, gets "reevaluated" during the Rapture (maybe during a class discussion on Dante's Inferno?). Anyways, I am honestly ignorant in that area so if you could direct me to the chapter I would have to read I would greatly appreciate it.
That is an interesting question. It's part of Jehovah's Witness teaching, so I'm pretty sure it must be biblical. Though Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe we have any awareness between death and judgement. We used to come back to that question a lot. Mormons believe in it too, I'm just not sure where is says so scripturally.
quote:Originally posted by adfectio: Not including LDS doctrine (I'm pretty ignorant on that), most Bible Scholars say that there are 4 places in the afterlife.
The Good: Paradise, or Abraham's Bosom
The Bad: The Rest
The Ugly: Hell
And the Best: Heaven
Up until Christ came and died on the cross, Christian philosophers agree that only two of these had any vacancy. Paradise, and The Rest. The three days while he was dead, he spent in Heaven preparing a place for them. From then on, those who believed and followed God would not go to Paradise, but rather Heaven.
Then, when Christ comes a second time, The gates to Hell are opened and those who were in The Rest are transfered to Hell.
This may not be correct, I'll have to check on it, but It rings true, and I thought it might be helpful. However when it's all said and done
Who are these "most Biblical Scholars"?
Orthodox Christian theology holds that Christ spent the time he was dead in hell, not in heaven. And the gates of hell are opened to let people out, not to transfer them in.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a story half written about an Angel who is seduced by the devil. She leaves Heaven and descends into Hell out of her love for him.
Once in Hell, of course, the Devil treats her badly, abuses her, cuts her off from all that she knew so that she's alone and scared. He even rips off her wings out of anger and jealousy.
She escapes--grows new wings and all--not when God finally decides to call down to her, but when she gains the courage to listen for God's voice.
In deed, when she first hears the call of God, she hides, for she believes herself unworthy of his love, and must be worthy only of his hate and punishment.
She accepts, finally, that she must love herself as one of God's creations. When she loves and respects herself enough, she gains the courage to leave, to grow new wings, to fly free of the sweet trappings and violence that the Devil enforces upon her.
It is a metaphor for wife abuse, but it also reflects my view on the question, how can a Loving God torture his creations vs. how can a Just God not torture his creations when they do wrong.
God does not Waterboard. We end up Waterboarding ourselves.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that most people who commit suicide are not in their correct state of mind. I believe God takes that strongly into account when deciding how to respond to your decision to take your own life.
I still think suicide is wrong, but it a wrong I think God has alot of understanding for, afterall the world we live in is one that he knew would eventually exist when he created it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I believe that most people who commit suicide are not in their correct state of mind. I believe God takes that strongly into account when deciding how to respond to your decision to take your own life.
I still think suicide is wrong, but it a wrong I think God has alot of understanding for, afterall the world we live in is one that he knew would eventually exist when he created it.
Where do you get this information? Or is it just your opinion? (Not meant to be snarky, seriously curious.)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a Mormon teaching, basically expanding the dictum "Judge not" to people who have commited suicide, and that we can't know that they will be damned.
Since we're sort of on this topic in the other thread, I'll say that the aspect of an afterlife that discouraged me as a young Mormon from suicide was not that I'd be damned, but that the pain would not stop, and I wouldn't even be able to drown it in chocolate.
quote:Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said: "Obviously, we do not know the full circumstances surrounding every suicide. Only the Lord knows all the details, and he it is who will judge our actions here on earth. "When he does judge us, I feel he will take all things into consideration: our genetic and chemical makeup, our mental state, our intellectual capacity, the teachings we have received, the traditions of our fathers, our health, and so forth" ("Suicide: Some Things We Know, and Some We Do Not," Ensign, Oct. 1987, 8).
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I believe that most people who commit suicide are not in their correct state of mind. I believe God takes that strongly into account when deciding how to respond to your decision to take your own life.
I still think suicide is wrong, but it a wrong I think God has alot of understanding for, afterall the world we live in is one that he knew would eventually exist when he created it.
Where do you get this information? Or is it just your opinion? (Not meant to be snarky, seriously curious.)
It's a smattering of both.
Clearly suicide is considered wrong according to Christian theology (edit: At least that is how I view the scriptures). Accounts of people who do commit suicide, that I have read, convince me that most people who commit the actual act, at the time are not rational in their decision making processes.
I once read a random statistic that said a majority of people who commit suicide regret the decision after the fact. These are of course taken from cases where the person survived.
There are people very close to me who have talked about suicide. It scared the hell out of me once to hear somebody I care about deeply say, "By the time you get home, I'll have taken care of this problem," in reference to themselves being miserable. I called work and said I was not coming in, and skipped school that day. In retrospect I do not think that person would have gone through with it that day, but the possibility was definately on the table.
I also read a study recently that found children who are gender conflicted, that is the gender they believe they are is not consistant with their sex have a 50/50 chance of commiting suicide in adolesence. Currently the only treatment is pubecent hormone inhibitors that slow down puberty until the patient is in their 20's and less likely to commit suicide. That to me indicates that suicide is often not a carefully considered and rational solution to a problem, often it is a reflex.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I once read a random statistic that said a majority of people who commit suicide regret the decision after the fact. These are of course taken from cases where the person survived.
I remember watching a documentary a few years back about people who had survived jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge. And IIRC, the unanimous 'first thought' after jumping was "Oh no, what have I done!?"
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
PILLS people! If you really want to off yourself but you're afraid you'll regret, take PILLS! That way if you change your mind you have time to call 911 and try to swallow your finger.
Don't try to OD on Tylenol. If you fail you could have liver damage and that would just make your life suck more.
There's a good chance you'll fail, so don't put anything too embarrassing in your suicide note.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"0Megabyte- I really don't appreciate your sarcasm. It's not exactly polite. I wasn't mocking you or anyone else, nor do I think that anything I said is worth mocking."
Who said anything about mocking? But I disagree vehemontly with your idea, and I was, as Pixiest said, stating my case.
"And you specifically brought up the idea of suicide- that's a difficult one but yes I do believe that those who kill themselves will not gain entry into heaven. Why? It's the ultimate act of pride really."
There are many reasons for a person to kill themselves. If you think it's all merely pride, then your imagination has faltered somewhat.
And as I said: No way out, then, is there? Certainly killing yourself to avoid sin is, itself, a sin in the eyes of your god, should he be real.
There's literally no escape.
"And the idea of one killing themselves to stop committing sin is laughable. As one who has lived with suicidals almost since birth and who was himself for a number of years and who has studied some of the Psychology of Suicide- it just doesn't happen."
It was a hypothetical. It's a thought that came into my mind, at least. Certainly it's a good point, it's a valid point, even if people don't actually do so. Hypothetical. The only one saying anyone's ideas are laughable seems to be you, not me.
"It certainly isn't God's fault that we sin. God, being sinless cannot even tempt us. Let alone cause us to sin- but he does respect the free will He gave us- and therefore allows us to break from His will if we so desire to. It's not about a list of things you can and can't do. A sin is a violation of the known will of God. God can't cause us to do that."
Don't be silly. Who designed us?
Did I design myself, with the capacity to sin?
Did I?
Did I choose to sin, even those times when I don't know what your god's definitions of what is right and wrong is?
Did I choose to posess human nature, the drives humans have, the desires, feelings, emotions that merely pop up as a function of being human, which God then designates as sin?
I don't have free will, when it comes to being human. Neither do you.
We have a specific design. Most of us have feelings of lust for people of the opposite sex, regardless of whether we marry that person or not.
Jesus quite clearly pointed this out as the same as adultery.
Yet, how could such a feeling exist, hmm? Due to the nature of our brains.
And who designed our brains? Certainly not you or I. But even so, you cannot escape such feelings, and you cannot escape sin, due to our very design. That's kind of the point, remember?
Human beings are terrible creatures not actually worth forgiving on their own merits, you believe this. All humans. Every single one. Based on how we are.
But we didn't choose how we are. We didn't choose the design of our brains, the way our instincts work, how our bodies work.
You say we have free will, yes? But we had no free will in regards to being born human. We had no choice but, in your theology, to be born in a state that is, by definition, imperfect enough to send us to hell.
Also: You say a sin is a violation of the known will of God, and God can't do that.
Shall I point out the Pharoah, which the Book of Exodus explicitly says God hardened the heart of? And then punished him for it?
Your statement is in blatant disagreement with the Bible, the source of your knowledge about said god.
"And when we sin- we are destroying our relationship with God. "
But sin is built into our very selves. Those who live without knowing God, go to hell. This is because their very humanness, the things that make us human, are by definition sinful. They are against the will of God.
Why would God create a creature whose very nature, whose very design - for it is in fact our design, which you can see in our very brains, our very genes, to do many things God says are against his will - is in direct violation of his will?
That's silly.
"And therefore since God is infinite- and sin is a rejection of God. Therefore sin can be IMO a rejection of the infinite. "
That doesn't follow. Just because God is infinite does not mean God is THE infinite. I think you're equivocating. (Could be wrong, but it certainly sounds like it to me)
"Maybe the answer isn't found in miracles, feelings or any sort of empirical evidence."
Well, if your religion is right? Most people, the vast majority of humans, get it wrong.
But if it's not foudn in miracles, it's not found in feelings, it's not found in physical evidence... then what? Revelation is always a miracle, so revelation cannot be a true source. Physical emirical evidence covers pretty much everything there is, and is the only one I reliably use, and feelings, what's left if you take away those three things?
No means. No source of information at all. No ability to find the truth.
A god who claims to wish to save us if only we believe, but who leaves literally nothing of any reliability, which is what happens if what you said above is true, not even miracles... and who, if you don't by sheer luck feel that he's the correct one, for the same reasons you'd believe in false gods like Zeus or Thor, will send you to eternal damnation for the crime of being human, something you had no choice about in the first place... what kind of sadist is this?!
Such a god should be cursed and damned and resisted with all our might if he is real, and if he is false, should be annihilated from record so completely that no man ever dreams of worshipping it ever again.
But, to ask the question again that you avoided during this long thing:
Who designed us, Shawshank?
Who designed our brains, which happen to do things God calls sins due to its very design?
Who designed our bodies, capable of so easily thrawrting God's will merely by following the in-built urges we cannot turn off, and have no choice in feeling?
Who allowed us to be born as entities whose likeliness of sinning is absolute, and who is thus condemned from birth to eternal torment unless we get, essentially, randomly lucky? (For it's random luck, essentially, that a person comes into contact enough with Christianity, either through birth or through meeting convincing Christians and overcoming their original religious upbringing, a monumentally difficult task.)
Well?
Who did this?
It certainly wasn't I!
You say God gave us free will? Well, being born a sinner by default certainly wasn't my will!
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now, I do what I can, I try to be as kind, loving a person as possible. I give to the poor as I can, and though I am surely imperfect, I act to do what I believe is right. Even so, God will cast me into the fire should I not believe.
Why is it that Christians are always slammed for creating false dichotomies, and yet atheists get to pull stuff like this? There are millions of Christians who believe that, like Aurelius said, God will judge you on the virtues you live by. If you are cast into fire, it won't be because you didn't believe but because you were selfish, greedy, prideful, hateful, etc. (Not that you are any of these things, especially not from what I've seen so far, but hypothetically speaking)
quote:Well, if he gives no evidence, how can I know that this IS the right god? One cannot tell the difference, when it comes to evidence. So, in the interest of not believing in false gods, I dont' believe without evidence. Still, for this, I'll still be punished.
OMeg, it sounds like you'd like to believe in God, but you're angry and frustrated that he hasn't proved himself to exist, so you've stopped believing. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe he is offering proof, but you just won't accept it? I'm actually curious as to what proof you would accept? (this is a serious question, I've never had a good answer for it) Does God have to break his natural laws in order to show his face? Does it have to be shown that the universe as it exists can't do so without some force or guiding principle we'd call God?
As to the actual thread topic, I really liked the idea of heaven and hell in C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. Basically hell and purgatory were the same place: a dreary, empty city on the brink of twilight, where nothing ever changes and nothing really happens. Every material desire is immediately satisfied, so it isn't long before all things purely material loose their appeal. The damned can occasionally visit heaven, if they so choose, but although it is beautiful and wonderful, they are so insubstantial and weak that the beauty and wonder is experienced as pain. It is only when they give up their sins that heaven becomes not only bearable but truly paradisical.
Of course there's no theological backing for this, but it shows that it is possible to have both Heaven and Hell without abandoning the idea of a just, benevolent, omnipotent God.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: But sin is built into our very selves. Those who live without knowing God, go to hell. This is because their very humanness, the things that make us human, are by definition sinful. They are against the will of God.
The very things that make us human? No, sins are a perversion of the things that make us human. We are built to be attracted to the opposite sex (or same sex, whatever) but the sin comes in having the pleasure of sex without the pleasures of love and commitment. The sin is not the the human desire for sex, but the unrestrained, ridiculously overblown desire for sex. Wanting to eat good food is also something we're programmed for, but if we only eat one thing that tastes best to us and constantly eat that one thing, it's a disgusting perversion of the pleasures of food.
I will agree though, that as humans the likeliness of not sinning during our lifetime is very small. That's why we teach forgiveness.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:We are built to be attracted to the opposite sex (or same sex, whatever) but the sin comes in having the pleasure of sex without the pleasures of love and commitment.
Why is that a sin? Or rather, why is that a bad thing?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why is that a sin? Or rather, why is that a bad thing?
Well, for one thing, since sex is designed to make babies, sex without commitment leaves lots of single mothers with a burden they deserve help with. Do I really need to go into why random sex is a bad thing? There's STDs and broken hearts (if the love is all on one side) for a start.
Edit: The STDs would actually be a result of unsafe sex with an infected partner (which could happen within the context of love and commitment, admittedly), or failed safe sex, but the odds are far greater of getting an STD if you practice unrestrained sex.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Wanting to eat good food is also something we're programmed for, but if we only eat one thing that tastes best to us and constantly eat that one thing, it's a disgusting perversion of the pleasures of food.
That's rather strong. It's not very good nutrition, certainly, but "digusting perversion"??
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now, I do what I can, I try to be as kind, loving a person as possible. I give to the poor as I can, and though I am surely imperfect, I act to do what I believe is right. Even so, God will cast me into the fire should I not believe.
Why is it that Christians are always slammed for creating false dichotomies, and yet atheists get to pull stuff like this? There are millions of Christians who believe that, like Aurelius said, God will judge you on the virtues you live by. If you are cast into fire, it won't be because you didn't believe but because you were selfish, greedy, prideful, hateful, etc.
It's true that there are millions of more liberal Christians as you say. But there are also millions of Christians who believe you will suffer eternally in hell no matter how good you are, if you don't believe in Christ. It's no false dichotomy to them but a very stark either/or proposition. They explicitly reject Aurelius' view, and can quote scripture at length to support their view.
I don't know which group is in the majority among Christians today. A century ago the either/or crowd was the majority.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, for one thing, since sex is designed to make babies, sex without commitment leaves lots of single mothers with a burden they deserve help with. Do I really need to go into why random sex is a bad thing? There's STDs and broken hearts (if the love is all on one side) for a start.
None of these sounds like intrinsic aspects of sex, but rather situationally dependent.
In a case where none of these will occur, is sex without love or commitment still a sin or a bad thing?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, I would say, rather, that it becomes sinful when our desire for pleasure overrides our concern for the welfare of others.
edit: I would add that, in my xperience, sex that is just about one's own pleasure - satisfying that physical itch - is emptier and less fulfilling than sex where there is a deeper emotional connection. Missing out on that deeper connection could be considered sinful as it, in my opinion is "falling short" or "missing the mark" of what sex can be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, a little strong, but think of it this way (stolen from C.S. Lewis, not my idea):
Picture a strip-show setting where instead of a scantily-clad woman, you have a series of covered platters. There's music and lights, and slowly each of the platters is uncovered to show a delicious meal. The crowd goes wild at each revelation, thrilled by the sight. At the end of the show, the food is removed from the stage, uneaten. Kinda weird, huh?
I was trying to draw parallels between the appetite for sex and the appetite for food, and how both can be distorted.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots, I can surely get on board with that. I'm perfectly fine with situational aspects or the intent of the people involved making it sinful or bad, but we're talking about a statement that made the act itself a bad act.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: In a case where none of these will occur, is sex without love or commitment still a sin or a bad thing?
I agree with kmb, with the added stipulation that the welfare of others includes all of those risks I mentioned, all of which *are* inherent, even if they are only inherent risks, and not guaranteed consequences.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Why is it that Christians are always slammed for creating false dichotomies, and yet atheists get to pull stuff like this? There are millions of Christians who believe that, like Aurelius said, God will judge you on the virtues you live by. If you are cast into fire, it won't be because you didn't believe but because you were selfish, greedy, prideful, hateful, etc. (Not that you are any of these things, especially not from what I've seen so far, but hypothetically speaking)
It's very simple. As a Christian, you have a book, called the Bible. In the pages of the Bible, it says that those who don't believe in the God of the Bible will be sent to Hell.
Feel free to edit the Bible, like Jefferson did, and take out the parts you find objectionable. Until you do, if you call yourself a Christian, how can we not assume that you follow the writings of the Christian scripture?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh. Javert, you seem to be assuming that Christians in general read the Bible literally and without any notion of context or interpretation.. This is not entirely true. Some Christians do that. Most do not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eowyn-sama, one shouldn't shrug off the risks of dying in a car accident. Yet driving is not considered sinful because of that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would add that, in my xperience, sex that is just about one's own pleasure - satisfying that physical itch - is emptier and less fulfilling than sex where there is a deeper emotional connection. Missing out on that deeper connection could be considered sinful as it, in my opinion is "falling short" or "missing the mark" of what sex can be.
You seem to be assuming that a deeper connection is available and beneficial in all cases of sexual intercourse. I don't agree that this is the case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sigh. Javert, you seem to be assuming that Christians in general read the Bible literally and without any notion of context or interpretation.. This is not entirely true. Some Christians do that. Most do not.
In that case, please explain the context of Mark 16: 14-16 for me:
quote:Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
The point is that the things that you are saying make sex, in and of itself, sinful are not aspects of sex itself, but rather aspects of the situation that sex may occur in. Sex can occur in situations without those aspects, but you seem to still consider it sinful.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess my original answer was why sex without love or commitment is a bad thing. That is somewhat different from why it's a sin, and I was too lazy to talk about the religious/spiritual implications.
I would say that sex without love or commitment is a sin because sex is a very profound act. Its very nature is to create new life, and since we still don't have a 100% effective method of birth control, that is still a possible outcome no matter what precautions are taken.
Without love or commitment that new life will not receive the full measure of care and consideration that it needs and if it lives to be an adult it has a greater chance of being a negative force in the world. (Edit: this is a very short statement for what I think is one of the most complex problems in our world, but maybe it sums it up enough to understand my point)
The reason why this is a greater risk than a car accident is that death does not equal creation of new life. You can die in many ways, but there is only one way to create life, and it should not be practiced lightly or without meaning.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, I would say that, when I have had the opportunity for a sexual encounter, there is usually an opportunity for a deeper connection than just the pleasure created by a physical stimulus. When there isn't, the encounter has not usually been worth the situation risks or even the time and inconvenience.
Javert, I am not a biblical scholar. I don't know what audience the authors of Mark were addressing or in what context they were writing or what particular agenda they may have had. Nor do I know the specifics or nuances of the original language. Off the top of my head, though, I would interpret that as:
"Go out and tell people that there is more to being, that we are part of something that goes beyond death. Explain to them about the God of love and that we are to love each other. Give them the opportunity to have new lives with this understanding. Those who don't believe this are condemned to live without this knowledge."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Without love or commitment that new life will not receive the full measure of care and consideration that it needs and if it lives to be an adult it has a greater chance of being a negative force in the world.
So all people who were conceived from sex that didn't take place in a loving, committed relationship did not receive the full measure of care and consideration that they needed? And, conversly, all the people conceived in relationships that did have these things did received the full measure of these?
---
quote:Its very nature is to create new life, and since we still don't have a 100% effective method of birth control, that is still a possible outcome no matter what precautions are taken.
Are you saying that there are no situations of having sex where creating a new life is not possible?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Javert, I am not a biblical scholar. I don't know what audience the authors of Mark were addressing or in what context they were writing or what particular agenda they may have had. Nor do I know the specifics or nuances of the original language. Off the top of my head, though, I would interpret that as:
"Go out and tell people that there is more to being, that we are part of something that goes beyond death. Explain to them about the God of love and that we are to love each other. Give them the opportunity to have new lives with this understanding. Those who don't believe this are condemned to live without this knowledge."
Kmbboots, I respect you and I don't want to offend you...but that sounds like justification so you don't have to tell me I'm going to hell, or you don't want your religion to say I am. Not interpretation, but justification.
quote: Are you saying that there are no situations of having sex where creating a new life is not possible?
More or less, yeah. Unless one or other of the parties is sterile or has be rendered so.
Edited to add: There are stages in a woman's cycle where she is not fertile, but these are very hard to predict, so the couple is not likely to know and therefore I wouldn't call it a controllable variable.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Found it. It's a lovely verse. By itself, it seems to suggest I have nothing to worry about as long as I lead a good and helpful life.
Unfortunately there are many other verses that describe the people who will receive eternal punishment. Why should I only read and believe this one?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Without love or commitment that new life will not receive the full measure of care and consideration that it needs and if it lives to be an adult it has a greater chance of being a negative force in the world.
From what you describe, it sounds to me that the sin is in creating a life that you are unable to care for, not in sex itself. To condemn something merely because it could potentially lead to a sin would be like prohibiting the use of knives because they could possibly be used for murder.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, there are situations where creating a new life is not possible. Is this sex still sinful? I dunno. However, it's also fairly rare.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why should I only read and believe this one?
You shouldn't. But you should be aware the there is some seeming contradiction in the Bible about this issue that people have different ways of reconciling.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Found it. It's a lovely verse. By itself, it seems to suggest I have nothing to worry about as long as I lead a good and helpful life.
Unfortunately there are many other verses that describe the people who will receive eternal punishment. Why should I only read and believe this one?
There are also many others that agree with Matthew. Why should you only read and believe the other ones?
That would be the "context" that katieboots was talking about. A lot of different opinions all in the same book. People read the whole thing and try to get a sense of who God is and what the relationship is (and should be) between God and humanity, add to it the traditions of their faith community and their own experience and reason and go from there.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it that Christians are always slammed for creating false dichotomies, and yet atheists get to pull stuff like this?
Well, because it makes everything take longer to type if you have to write "a bunch of Christians believe that..." before every single statement. I mean, we have Catholics on this board who believe that God's not opposed to abortion, but I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to argue that Catholics oppose abortion; the fact that one or two Catholics disagree doesn't necessarily invalidate it.
In the same way, saying that "Christians believe in Jesus" despite the fact that some sects calling themselves Christian do not actually believe that Jesus Christ existed in the flesh is not a statement that requires much softening.
We have some pretty wild "Christian" beliefs on this board, to the extent that any generalization about Christian belief on Hatrack can be met with a "what about me?" exception from somebody. I'm not sure that's an atheist's fault, though.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, there are situations where creating a new life is not possible. Is this sex still sinful? I dunno. However, it's also fairly rare.
So, can we say that it is not sex occurring outside of a loving and committed relationship that is sinful (or as you initially said "having the pleasure of sex without the pleasures of love and commitment") that is sinful, but rather common aspects of this situation?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
