Sexuality seems to be very high on the list of "sins" with many christians. Why is this, when there are so many cruel and anti-social practices reported in news media across the world? Such practices have very real and destructive effects upon the lives of so many people....yet they are ignored, by and large.
I think we can safely sat that both atheists and theists have these types of sins very high on their agenda. Both camps reserve severe censure for even the smallest indiscretions as can be seen in the tabloids.
Atheists might want to believe they are more liberated but if we study the newspapers/societies constant obsession with this topic it is easy to see
the "sin" aspect is still present in their analysis.
The newspapers and other media are full of reports about crimes, e.g., embezzlement, corruption, theft, murder, genocide, pillaging of natural forests, forcing communities out of their homelands for economic gain..... all these are very real crimes that cause hurt and suffering to so many people.
Yet the christian "lobby" is almost silent about it. As though none of these things come anywhere near to the level of "sin" that sexuality does.
Please don't sidestep the question by bringing in the old football game of theist v. atheist. Why do you regard sexual sin as warranting more attention than any other sin?
The newspapers might be full of all that "other stuff" but the question in this hub is about why sex is regarded as sinful by Christians/religious people. All I have done is point out the Fact that both sides of the fence regard sex as sinful on some weird psychological level.
I know the JWs are always talking about all the other stuff (I am not overly fond of JWs) and in my experience the Hindus are also concerned about ethics in general. Most churches I've been to don't focus on sex.
As far as mainstream Christians "in the media" go I know they focus (many not all) on an anti gay agenda but this is more about their concept of marriage and tradition. Certainly in the distant past there was a fixation on sex by puritans and inquisitions say in the Middle Ages.
I agree that Christians and many religious types (not all) have hang ups about sex; but I repeat in all sincerity that this seems to be a general feature of humanity.
May I recommend two short books? (summary on wiki): Sigmund Freud's "Totem and Taboo' and "Moses and Monotheism" where he goes into some of this. This is a psychological insight into all people's general hang ups about sex and the very real "Oedipus complex".
Certainly early and late religions all had to deal with sexual issues. Prior to modern medicine in say the darkest Middle Ages example of Christian evolution the practice of sex was fraught with horrible diseases that could not be cured. Hence it seemed that both nature and/or God were not happy about sex.
My personal view is that sex is a test no one completely passes; but it depends on how we fail that matters to the God . Its like a metal fatigue test! Certainly sex is one of the most difficult tests for people to deal with. My personal focus on personal inner tests is more concerned with ego and controlling pride/ego. Personally I think the focus on sex that both sides of the equation share (atheist/theist) is more about the Freudian tale of the inner primordial ape trying to get the better of the the others. Or in scientific parlance, trying to get their genes ahead of the pack.
However JCLately I have to reinforce that the two sides of the coin have an identical equal focus on this concept of sexual "sin" regardless of football.
Ok, thank you for that explanation.... very helpful.
Oztinato, you are vulgar. I take great exception to you mis-spelling my name in that way.
Give me an apology and I will let it rest here. Otherwise, I will not let it rest.
If he doesn't apologize, I will report him. That IS crude and vulgar. I have never reported anyone except for spam. This is crossing the line.
Really Guys??? Success in offense comes simply by 2 letters? Report??? (Hi Janesix I remember you, we are becoming one...) I just KNOW...jonny... is not gonna fall for that one. I did notice a mis-spelling of oztinato by jonny not long ago...should he be reported? No... we are all adults. Vulgarity is the M.O. of most of us on some level. 'We all give/take it.
And as a further note... If I asked for apology from jonny----lately for each and every "offense" toward me, he'd STILL be apologizing...and...still.
See, this proves my point!
On a discussion about the alleged prudery of Christians we have extreme prudery being shown by atheists to a very mild sexual innuendo. Hypocrisy of the first order.
Game set and match.
jonny....Oh...hmmmm, let's see...how shall I put this? They're nosy? Peeping toms? sensationalists? VOYEURS? Pick one or two. Maybe they are the same group of individuals who make up the greatest number of smut magazine/celebrity gossip subscribers?......Wait....could be they're all elite members of the Sex Police Task Force.
Whatever THEIR answer might be for their interest in "sex" (in general or specifically)....I'm honestly not concerned, but I would like to suggest to these busy body hypocrites: Relax, back off, MYOB, first get a life, 2nd a useful hobby, stay out of my bedroom, I stay out of yours, and thank you very much, but no thank you, I will make my own sexual choices, decisions and activities.....within the guidelines of morality and the law.
Do we have a deal? Good.
Peace & Love to you, Ms & Mr. Christian (with a capital "C")
do you have the same venom for internationally acclaimed atheist Professor of Ethics and leading atheist academic Peter Singer in his promotion of "Zoophilia"? Have a look at his "Zoophilia" on Wiki on this good friend and cohort of Mr Dawkins.
Do you swing that way as a modern atheist?
If you consider the label "Atheist" as applying to a group calling themselves that, fair enough.... I presume there is such a group, masquerading as some sort of new "religion."
I am not a "member" of any such group, but I am atheist (adjective) in my thinking. I would not align myself with anything that an ethicist claims to be the correct way of thinking. Who are they to claim a monopoly on ethics?
As far as bestiality is concerned, have you ever heard of a horse giving written consent to such abuse upon itself?
Oztinato.....You "presume" FAR too much, which of course, is always a huge mistake. #!. I am not an atheist, nor did I allude to such in any way. #2 Never heard of Singer, nor am I interested in his "Zoophilia." Thank you anyway. Simply, 90% of Christians are a group of judgmental, ignorant hypocrites..MY Opinion. Focus on your OWN comments. #3 I am not your "good friend" nor would I wish to be. I do not appreciate unsolicited critiques of my constitutional rights. What shall the rest of us assume by your OBSESSION with Zoophilia? Never mind, I'm not interested in what you think.
Isn't sexuality highest of list of human interest.
Plus homosexuality is highest on the list of abominations.
I am surprise that you seem surprised?
Really? More than rape and murder? Wow, you Christians really have your moral priorities straight.
lets not forget about you either: what are your views on the current atheist fashion for "Zoophilia" as proposed by "Professor of Ethics" Peter Singer?
No condemnation there I bet.
Do you swing it that way too?
You once again bring up Singer, for what reason? What does he have to do with this discussion?
I am bringing it up so anyone with some intelligence can realize there might be very good reason for some groups of Christians to be concerned about the new atheist sexual fashions that can potentially create new diseases and nightmarish scenarios.
If you actually stop and think about it instead of rushing to criticize Christians all the time you might learn something.
In a nut shell: do you have any venom for the SInger/Dawkins populist style style bestiality? No of course you don't you only criticize Christians and religions.
"Atheist types..." You are being very (trying to think of one word that might describe you, obstinato) obtuse maybe? Apparently you have a group calling themselves the Atheists..... but I don't claim to fit into any such category.
Just because I do not accept the existence of a judgmental god, that does not mean I necessarily approve of any sexual activity which does not involve the full and free agreement of both parties.
Any person who uses another person or animal for his/her own gratification, without the approval of that other person/animal, is guilty of a gross assault. Obviously no animal is able to give consent to an assault upon it's body.... therefore I feel that no reasonable person should engage in such a thing.
As far as humans are concerned, any person who, for whatever reason, cannot defend him/herself from assault, and/or cannot reasonably be expected to give his/her consent to a sexual act, must be protected and defended by the community at large. Where a law has been broken it of course must be dealt with in a court of law. I am thinking of women or men who are of a weaker disposition; a child; a person who is disabled physically or mentally or intellectually; a person who cannot be addressed in their own language.
Are you suggesting that one needs to be "a christian" in order to have and live up to such moral standards? Are you suggesting that "a christian" would never be guilty of immorality in such matters.
I believe true ethical atheism has its place: however this kind of Real atheism would be actively opposing beastialtiy and open slather infanticide. As current atheist trends are not opposing these unethical and dangerous practices I am quite correct in pointing out this failing.
One does not need to be of a theist or atheist persuation to be against such practices.
You seem to be "muddying the waters" with irrelevant nonsense in order to direct attention away from the subject of this Discussion. Are you?
Hi Johnny. I'm not certain he is muddying the waters. What is the logical progression of thought on bestiality? If/then. If we have no mandate on morality.....if decency is nothing more than behavior that is acceptable. If we are simply another species of animal functioning solely by instinct.
Many make these arguments. If we are to accept them, carte blanc....then, if other species do have individuals within them who copulate with individuals from other species how can someone who accepts the arguments in the first paragraph complain that such behavior patterns displayed by a human are morally repugnant? They would only be morally repugnant to those who share that sense of decency. It wouldn't be a universal sense.
You, yourself, stated something to the effect that individuals must consent. Consent is implied by behavior patterns when verbal communication is not possible. So, it would be feasible to observe and consider the act not an act of violence.
I honestly don't think, without the underlying assumption that behavior patterns are wrong by higher standards than human law, it couldn't be reasonably argued that many things we consider to be deviant behavior patterns are, in fact, natural. If such an argument is made often enough, backing this argument with conclusions previously accepted; in that we are simply animals, such behavior patterns could feasibly gain acceptance as normal and decent.
See??? When you believe in my God; NO atheism has it's place anywhere. That is called a NO in the Kingdom of God. We gotta believe that he at least IS before we may ever hope to receive anything from him.
Is your god so finite, so constricted, so controlled by human minds? Such a mind-set is not worth my atheistic understanding or acceptance.
I would rather believe in Harry Potter and his Philosopher's Stone.
By the way, Cgenaea, you mentioned "high ranking" atheists. I don't know of any; don't have any recognition of hierarchy or a structure of atheism. I try to draw upon numerous minds, many of which are much more powerful and succinct than my own, then form my own conclusions. I do not deny you your own understandings, as said several times before in other threads.
No, my God is actually beyond the understanding of human minds haven't you noticed? He gave us the bible. That is where I get the information supporting all my statements. Not my mind
Have your Harry Potter...
I dont know any high-ranking atheists either and had no idea there were any. However, please remind me of my statement regarding them. Maybe I short-circuited...
"Open slather infanticide". This is a bit of jargon I've not seen before; can you describe what it is supposed to mean?
Because I've never heard anyone promoting infanticide, let alone something has horrible sounding as "open slather" infanticide.
Hey Man! how you be???
Uh, what the hell is open slather?
I THINK I want my slathers closed!
You have to keep them open for free discussion, Cgenaea, just to let the light of laughter in... good medicine.
I dunno WHAT open slather is. Just ignorant, I guess, but I think I want mine closed, too.
I'm not familiar with "open slather" infanticide, but I think he/she is referring to Peter Singer's belief that infanticide is not murder
Thanks, Kess. I am not surprised, just trying to highlight the irrational exaggeration in the minds of some people.
Come on johnny why such harsh judgement?
Maybe that is why it will remain there....
Yes, that harsh judgment.....determining the at because something is thoroughly enjoyable "God" will not like it. You can tax it. You can ban it. You can use it to exploit people. You can secretly engage in it. Yet never acknowledge it as healthy and able to be spoken about in respectable company.
Yes, sexual relationships are some of the most powerful connections we make with other individuals, fraught with difficulties in conveying our true feelings, our honest selves. Thus such relationships have the makings of deep divide as well as higher unions. Do those who regard sexual sin as one of the greatest "abominations" ever look into the reasons for their understanding?
I share the skepticism of EncephaloiDead
By aligning with mr dead it becomes understandable why you would initiate this rant.
Johnny is just showing he has morals and ethics that have reasonable and logical priorities, something amiss in your posts.
Morals and ethics vary from person to person. What rings ethically in my ear today; could very well sound differently tomorrow. We evolve in thought. We change. We get angry and or ecstatically enthusiastic and changes in thought occur.
Shades of gray need a moderator.
Who moderates for you? What solid standard sets you so far in advance of the moralities of Kess? I jist gotta know if you don't mind...
and last but not least JCL: let us hear your views about Peter Singer's atheist philosophy on "Zoophilia"?
Do you swing it that way as a new atheist type?
There is no logical or rational connection between the two.... how could you make such an error?
There are many heterosexual males who regularly get involved in grossly disgusting pornographic activity. Do you presume ALL heterosexual men are thus inclined? Stereotyping any group is inappropriate. Maybe my opening statement in this thread is similarly in error.
and what of your thoughts about leading atheist professor of ethics Peter Singer and his atheist promotion of "Zoophilia"?
No criticsim there? Do you swing it that way?
That kind of lifestyle goes with the thinking of this age.
I just did not realize that it was so open and out there.
Where I live, he would be facing a prison sentence.
I like Kess and Mo's responses.
Sex is not the christian problem. Not only are we constantly bombarded by t-n-a; we are under obligation to agree with God on the matter. In christian cases, the bible is what God says.
As for sexuality; the abomination part is the clincher. And alternative sexuality is OUT OF THE CLOSET (as never before.) I remember how gay was a word that people did not say when I was a kid. Elton John and Liberace were the ONLY two in the 70's! that's why all the fuss these days. That closet flew open and out poured a multitude!!! Lol...
I, as one of "them" (christians) today, am not bothered by any of it. I got my own sexual junk to continue in prayer about. To turn my nose up in the direction of the gay man is in another sense, abominable. We got NO rights to direct the paths of others. Or oust/mistreat.
It is better that a millstone be tied about one's neck and he be cast into the sea; than for him to offend the very least of God's own. (Bible script paraphrase) homosexuality is not any more death sentence than my stuff. Or their stuff... we just gotta have the mind of Christ about it. Humble, meek, not puffed up, remorse, ability for self scrutiny, and determination for truth are all good places to start.
do you think there is any hope for "us"?
Hi Oztinato. Yes, our hope springs eternal. Without doubt, there is hope for us all. Fret not the battle is the Lord's.
I mean "you and me"........
I am an older George Clooney look alike type ; artistic; musical.
Now see...just got all "bothered" lol!!! George is a little too sexy for this conversation.
Was that a flirt??? Hmmm... im a younger "type" 41 y/o artistically inclined car/shower singer... we've got a lot in common. But hope? I doubt it. Internet love strikes me the wrong way. Plus im kinda taken.
Genaea, you never know! I met my husband online. We're working on six years married now.
In the America of skyrocketing divorce rates, it seems that you have cake that you get to eat too. I'm glad for your success in that area (a lil jealous too, lol). Congratulations on making IT work. I shall have my day.
Never doubt it. We often joke that the only way either of us is leaving this marriage is in a pine box. We're both committed. And I knew the instant I met him that he was the one who'd been made for me. I believe you'll know too.
Truth is...we are all supposed to leave our marriages in a pine box. But for the hardness of our hearts (and most penises -lol) we have fallen way off the mark.
Committment is beautiful. I pray that next time I am given to one who has that mindset. In marriage, one monkey can DEFINITELY bring the show to a screeching halt.
Thanks! Inspiration's always good on a Tuesday.
I resemble that!!!
Some people tell me I look like Clooney, yet never too sexy to talk to anyone. I want everyone to enjoy the sex energy to the max without quilt or regret or feel they will go to hell for it. Maybe hell will have hotter sex..
You are somewhat visually Clooneyesque. but hell, from what I hear aint fun (though hot).
Sex is to be enjoyed by Mo and her man ONLY We got rules...they are not there to take the "freaky-sneaky fun" from your life. But in place to protect your member and keep you from all kinds of ugly leakages. God knew what casual sex could do. Bastard babies who grow up fatherless; chlamydia; and using/hurting vulnerable women and children (damaging them for life) all for 3squirts of the hot sticky drip. Those 3 seconds of Heaven are rarely worth the damage done to self and others. Screw given consents. It just aint good for you to lay the pipe everywhere your feet trod. As hot and as lovely as sex can become, it is best done with your one wife.
Homosexuality has its dangers as well. It cannot be a good thing when someone can fit two fists... anal fissures... AIDS... toxic wastes and blood in bed with you... no way to shut off the sphincter...
Safety first. we can always find ways to have fun without incorporating dangers. Uh...wanna play grocery store???
Sorry, Cgenaea, but those things you mention are not characteristic of all (or necessarily many) homosexual people. HIV/AIDS is a disease. It can be experienced by hetero- and homosexual people alike. In Africa it is principally a disease of heterosexual people. Just like syphilis and gonorrhea, herpes, which occur regardless of orientation.
Part of the reason for my original question in this Discussion was the previous hub exchange about homosexuality and the bible. I am putting up the premise that sexuality per see is a stumbling block for many christians, disproportionately compared with other crimes and "sins."
Sorry for the off juxtaposations. I know that the diseases named were not exclusive to the homosexual population. But when I FIRST saw people dying of AIDS they were largely gay. Needlers were of the next wave of deaths. It was horrifying to me as a kid. I may be somewhat traumatized.
Homosexuality is a stumbling block for gay Christians. A thorn in the sides of some others. I missed the conversation you referenced. Havent been on in a while.
But I know, The father is NOT in conversations of the self-righteous. They are too busy giving their own irrelevant opinions and feeling "good" about them to hear the God I serve. We gotta say what he says. He says that he desires that none should perish. He made a way for us all. ♡
yes I was flirting to blow the minds on the atheist types here.
Also I was trying to "read your mind" online.
See we are not so different even though I take a more holistic approach to religion.
I play a mean boogie piano for a white guy.
What's that supposed to mean? Would you suck for an asian? White people are people too.
Mission accomplished. All minds were blown maybe one day we can all boogie together. I'd like that.
For once I have no criticism of what you have written, Cgenaea.
Because God has given us a list of things to be concerned with and many Christians are concerned with all these things, including sexuality, poverty, starvation and genocide.
Seems to me that according to the bible God gave the Jews a list of things he was concerned about for them, but Jesus is said to have not been so concerned. I've been told Christians are allowed to work on Sundays, but yet people pick certain practices that they don't like or understand and use the bible to attack them.
Christians should be more like Christ rather than simply fans of Christ.
Which practices that Christians don't like or understand but that Jesus was totally okay with should we choose to be more Christ-like about?
Prostitution, homosexuality. Why can they work on Sunday, but still think homosexuality is a sin?
Christ himself gave a specific answer to one of those questions. Hmmm. I wonder why he never said anything about homosexuality... oh!!! He told the woman, sin no more... I guess he knew that she knew what he meant for her. It MAY not be sin for some... though I dont know anyone who is totally unconvicted about it without first saying no to the inner promptings.
Explain prostitution and sexuality to me. How was Jesus so laissez-faire about those? What did He do that I should emulate?
Did he stone or tell others to stone prostitutes, homosexuals or those who work on Sundays?
Let's think about that. When the woman was caught in adultery, what did He actually say to her? And when the subject of marriage was brought up, what did He actually say about that?
Last I checked there are no laws against adultery or working on Sundays in more nations that are predominately Christian, however there are against prostitution and homosexuality. We have people protesting the funerals of US soldiers with "GOD HATES FAGS" signs. While most Christians may think that adultery is a sin, few think working on Sunday is a sin. Christians do both equally anyway, but for some reason some think we need laws against prostitution and homosexuality.
What would be the purpose of any God making 10% of people attracted only to their own sex and then telling them not to do it. It would be like you or I being told to never act on our own sexuality, never get married or have a relationship or fall in love. I would call the cruel and unjust punishment.
But there sure used to be. And really, not all that long ago. Anyone over the age of twenty-five is old enough to remember "Blue Laws" against working on Sunday. And it wasn't much longer ago than that that anti-adultery laws that had been on the books for, in some cases, centuries were repealed, at least here in the US. And frankly, I'm not aware of a majority (even a tiny little slight majority) of 'Christian' countries that still carry anti-homosexuality laws. Uganda is one, but a lot of African countries are majority Muslim, not Christian. A lot of Asian countries are not 'Christian' countries.
Yeah. A few. A very, very few. And they are not widely embraced, even within conservative evangelical circles.
If you read Paul's letters, there's a lot of things that the OT said not to do that are okay for Christians. Adultery is most certainly not one of them, but eating shellfish is. And again, it was when America (I specifically refer to my home country because I know it best, but I'm sure this is true for other countries. I know that Australia, at least until recently, totally shut down on the weekends,) was a more 'Christian' nation that we had blue laws. It's been as secularism and humanism (for good or for bad) have become more prominent that these laws have been repealed and sometimes people don't have a choice. Police departments and hospitals don't shut down on Sundays.
Just out of curiosity, got the numbers on that?
That one's a bit more complicated. I don't know why God makes some people like that. The numbers can be debated but that doesn't change the fact that some people are bisexual and some people are homosexual. However, there are times when you and I are told not to act on our own sexuality, specifically when we wish to 'dip the wick' (as it were) with some lass we ain't married to. Yeah, we have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, and the Bible certainly encourages this. But constraints are there.
However, this still doesn't answer my question as to your original point. What 'live and let live' attitude did Jesus show towards adulterers and gays that I should strive to emulate?
Chris, since you bring up Paul. Paul believed (had no way of knowing) that Gentiles were outside the covenant that God made with Israel. I do not believe this is what Jesus had said.
But if Gentiles are outside the covenant they why do Christians still believe homosexuality is a sin for Gentiles? Christians use Paul to allow them to work on Sunday, but not to legalize homosexual marriage. They themselves go to work on Sunday and proclaim that homosexuality is a sin. It's confusing to say the least. Some even blame the loose of a soldiers life on legalizing gay marriage.
Paul also say that Jesus appeared to him and told him he would return soon. I guess soon is a relative term.
Edit, he apparently also said Jewish hostility toward the church was sinful opposition that would incur God's wrath. That's the kind of thing Christians may have picked up on that may have caused anti-anti-semetism.
Gentiles would, by definition, have been outside the covenant God made with Israel. If you think differently then please explain.
As for your second paragraph, I have one word. "Romans."
Although Jesus was very specific about what marriage was meant to be. So that applies as well.
Don't think that theologians haven't been struggling with just how relative 'soon' is. But even Peter said that to God, a thousand years is like a day, so we don't know.
Anti-Semitism has, unfortunately, never needed an excuse.
Aw man... I was really looking forward to an ANSWER to the question posed. I thought you must have some insight into your ideas of what Christ followers look like in this regard...got nothin; again...
There are almost the same amount of Christians as Muslims in Africa. There are 82 countries in which homosexuality is illegal, most of them in Africa. At least half of those countries are Christian.
What's your source? I mean that sincerely, I would like to be able to read what you did to arrive at that number.
Ah, in other words, you never bothered to do your homework when you made those false statements. As usual.
I did a study on illegal gay countries, ATM is in the ball park. Less than half of the illegal countries were predominate Christian countries.
And the others who have a huge problem with the practice???
Thank you. Just out of curiosity (not doubting your word) is there someplace I can actually see the numbers?
Out of curiosity, is there ANY (predominately) Christian country that freely allows homosexuality and specifically gay marriage?
Odd how Christians make a huge deal out of the first one and literally ignore the rest.
Well, except for the genocide one, in which Christians have actually participated.
It is odd how you continue to say things so patently untrue with a straight face and actually believe them. Nevertheless, there you are.
"No event in recent history has challenged Christian reflection on Africa more than the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.Within a period of less than one hundred days, more than 800,000 Rwandans were killed by fellow Rwandans, as the rest of the world stood by and watched. The majority of the killings were carried out by ordinary Rwandans against their neighbors using machetes, sticks, and clubs with nails, making the Rwandan genocide one of the most inexplicable tragedies of our time. What makes the Rwandan genocide a particularly chilling and challenging event for Christian reflection, however, is thatRwanda has been, and perhaps remains, one of the most Christianized nations in Africa."
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/log/summar … ngole.html
Once again, you seem to conveniently forget facts.
I'm sorry, did you actually cherry-pick one fact, out of context, and use it as your entire basis for making a sweeping statement that would cover far more than you seem to be trying to prove?
How very, very....you...of you.
Come back when you're serious.
No, I presented a fact in context, after you said to me...
Even if it was in context (and with you, sometimes it's hard to tell) the fact is you cherry-picked one factoid as the entire proof basis for a sweeping statement that covered far more than that.
So yeah, I stand by what I wrote.
No to mention that you grossly over-simplified a situation that is actually very well-documented in order to 'prove' your point...
Again, I presented a fact in which you said I was saying untrue things, hence you were wrong, that is the bottom line.
One factoid does not change my whole argument. When you start presenting lots of facts and not out of context or contorted to make a complex and long-running situation fit your one small point, then you'll have something.
Here are the predominate Christian countries
Antiqua and Barbuda
Papua New Guinea
St Kitts & Nevis
Sao Tome and Principe
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
Many of these countries are small and the illegal law can be unclear.
Machetes and mass killings are not Christian tools. Christians may only do so much if hardness of heart and coldly waxed love is the motivation. Stop trying to inject those turnips. Lol...
I wasn't aware that Hutu and Tutsi were names of Christian sects.
For some, I think it is true what Leland R. Beaumont said “Blame is where we try to park our grief.” but sometimes it appears that the only purpose the blame game serves is to keep us from being positive influences for change.
There is a great deal you have shown us that you're not aware. Par for the course.
You're kidding, right?
Are we back to accusation as proof?
Since they are not Christian sects, you appear to be the one willfully floundering around in the dark.
I doubt that. No one is that obtuse. I think, sometimes, people simply push forward a ridiculous argument because they don't have a valid one to present. If they pretend as if it is a valid argument; they appear to think everyone is supposed to pretend that they believe it to be valid, too.
we need a "for instance…" !
I have no idea what you are talking about either!
1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
Other sins are not ignored. The sin of fornication is not only against God but also against the person's own body.
I also must point out that most threads about sex and the Bible are not started by believers but non-believer whether they are atheists or some other belief system.
Don't be ridiculous; sex between unmarried but consenting adults is not a sin against your body.
Well now we have the "authority" on the matter??? Thanks.
Someone probably ALMOST stopped fornicating for a few minutes. lol...
America! We have Wilderness' blessing. Let the good times roll!!!
Unless you have faith in God...
You do have Wilderness' blessing to fornicate in private, given that both wish it so. Whether your old book says to or not, you have my blessing.
And judging from the frequency with which it happens, I'd have to say that the large majority will accept my blessing rather than the Christians condemnation as something real and true.
You are correct. Itching ears and hot bodies will follow you anywhere!!!
You're right - people will always follow sex - God made sure of that when He installed a sex drive that overrides mental capabilities in most people. Just look at advertisements everywhere to see that!
NOTHING overrides GODLY mental capabilities I can do ALL things through Christ who gives me strength.
Now, Wilderness mental capabilities are very well represented by the sand in the hourglass... time's a wasting...
You are apparently wrong. God's creation, man's wants and emotions, overrides God's orders most of the time. It's called "sin" and all men sin; man's wants overriding God's orders, whether Christ is giving strength or not.
Or are you sinless?
I didn't think you knew that!!!
Now, for all of our audience who did not understand: Wilderness just pointed out that when you let go of God's mind, you are subjected to your own sinful nature. Therefore, the mind of God protects you from sin!!!
Thank you Wilderness for your kind words in favor of keeping the right mind.
And Cgenaea just pointed out that she won't read or learn. Wilderness pointed out that all are subjected to our "sinful" nature, with or without help from Christ, and that the "mind of God" protects us from nothing.
But you are welcome for the truth.
"America! We have Wilderness' blessing. Let the good times roll!!!
Unless you have faith in God..."
That is paraphrase for your Grandad walking in to the bedroom just at the wrong moment! Bah! Just when things were getting hot and good!
" The sin of fornication is not only against God but also against the person's own body. "
If there was force, brutality, disregard for the "other" person, sure it would be against one's own body and the other.
However, a bit of hanky-panky between to friends can be some of the best tonic pick-me-ups in the world. Does your bogus god object to such enjoyment?
Depends...is that friend your one and only wife???
Interesting. You think God wants us to go against our natural inclinations?
It's possible He does. Maybe he wishes us to be sexually responsible (by not having sex outside of marriage). However, there is plenty of sex in even marriage that is not used for procreating. Does God want us to enjoy sex (why make it enjoyable when not used for procreation in the first place, etc.)?
Aw come on!
Our natural inclinations are against God. Right??? He said "don"t touch it." To the first people, according to the legend. And all they needed was one little suggestion. And they touched all over it. Lol... they passed the disobedience down.
(Why make it so tasty looking God??????) Really???
We must bring our thoughts under subjection. Otherwise, we'll get pedophiles who ask God why make those little legs so cute? Or the thief, why did he make me so poor. Or the embezzler, why Did God give me access to all those books with real money on them??? We are responsible for our own indulgences. We dont wanna believe that, but it's true. We must know how restraint works. We need to use it.
Why must we know? I know why, but I'm wondering what you are thinking.
The way I see it, the bible says that we are to be disciplined. We are to die daily. Contain self so that the spirit of God is most evident. Give over the carnal nature for abundant life and optimal existence on Earth. It is of GREAT struggle. So if we say yes, we receive the extra help needed. It becomes easy and successful.
That's ridiculous. We are forced into choosing to go against our own natures, so we can be disciplined? That sounds a bit sadistic to me. There must be something you're missing, girl.
It's like forcing someone with a high libido to live in a house filled with willing starlets, yet telling him to look the other way, and don't touch the goods (or else!). That seems pretty mean to me. There has to be some other explanation.
the bible said that you would say that. Lol. Me is the new fangled god. Nothing is more important me... I guess it's about that time...
I like you:) However, half the time I have no idea what you're saying. Use little words, speak slowly, I have a slow brain...lol
I'm pretty sure the bible speaks of a time when people will be so concerned with self and fleshly things that they will not hear... they will "seek" out people to tell them what they want to hear. Reject the true message of God... this forum is full of that particular prophecy.
I still don't get you. How was what I said NOT the same thing you said?
You said, basically, that God sets us up so that we can be disciplined. Is that not what you said? How is that not a mean thing to do?
I said nothing about God setting us up. Our nature is not the way it is because of God. We choose the we we become. If we are women; and we like sex with women, it is not natural. Nature built women for men. However, our hearts become hard and our desire carries us away. When we resist the enemy, he flees. When we make him coffee and cake, he feels welcome; and sits down to see what ELSE you like...
Fyi...I am no homophobe. I am not appauled or taken aback by the practice. It is God's business. He deals with us according to our own faith. He knows best what that looks like.
Oh that's BS. Of course God made us the way we are. God created EVERYTHING. He gave us our instincts. He gave us our cards he dealt us.
The bible said you would say that.
God made us free thinkers. He made us fluid. We decide. He didn't MAKE Adam and Eve forbidden fruit lovers. he gave them instruction and left them to follow...or don't. They chose...
Please. Give me the verse where the BIBLE said I would say that.
No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13 NRSV)
In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly. KJV
Somehow the bible gave these answers to you on this matter eons ago.
Somehow, I feel that you will still attribute your choices to just not being able to do different because of the pickle that God put you in by making you totally different than what he wants. Please...think about that.
The man who beats his wife blames God for MAKING him short-tempered.
I don't BLAME God. I do believe he tests us. But the thing is, he DOES create our initial situations. You said it was for discipline. I can accept that as a possibility if you meant SELF discipline. It wouldn't make any sense otherwise.
We make our choices. We need to take responsibility for our actions. But why the test in the first place? Why make it so hard?
What is God shaping us for? What's the endgame?
Alls I know is, the man said do it. He promised heaven. So maybe that is the "game" of which you speak.
***hey...d'ju know that we most often create our own tests/circumstances???
Since God=nothing, then you BLAME nothing. Good place to start, because then you can own ALL responsibility for your actions.
I do own all responsibility for my actions. (This wasn't always the case)
But, Either God or nature deals us each a different deck of cards. That has to be factored in. Some of us have it easier than others. Some have to work harder. Some of us are "luckier" than others (as in, I got a pretty easy deck to deal with, a good upbringing etc, good health, and whatever. A mother with small children starving in Africa has it ten times worse than me).
Ok, there is so much to say about our deck. First, there are MANY ways to play it. However, without God, the choices are limited. With God, ALL things are possible. We just gotta let him help us play...
Disagree. It has to come from within. It's on OUR shoulders.
I honestly think God doesn't want us to rely on him. If there is a God. I have reason to believe there is. If there isn't, then my reasoning doesn't matter anyway. It's still on US to play our cards to the best of our ability.
I think God wants us to think for ourselves. To choose Good over evil just because it's Good, and not because we are afraid of the consequenses (such as Hell). But because it's the right thing to do.
By reading the Bible several times. By reading some portions of the Vedas, and other Hindu stories and texts. Mythology. Buddist teaching. The I ching. The Secret of the Golden Flower. Hundreds of texts on mythology and religion. Comparative mythology. Joseph Campbell.
About the only thing I have left to read is the Koran, which I have read some sections of.
Hmmm. Then I wonder HOW ON EARTH you could be confused... (rhetorically of course).
I want to know as much as possible about the world I live in. The more information I have, the more ability I have to discern what the truth might be.
While I am not much of a rational or logical thinker, I think that I have at least average intelligence. Enough that I can figure out what might be going on around me if I have enough information.
Yep. Seems to me that we should start with identifying fact from fiction. I am finding this board to be fiction-filled. The creativity of writers is extremely entertaining. Some of them actually try to sell the UNtruth that we can just do as we wilt and just blame an imaginary creature in the sky for making us so faulty and our desires so desirable. Isn't that funny?
You're idea of a fact is different from mine. This is obvious.
Facts are observable by people with rational-thinking minds. You blind yourself to facts, in my opinion, because you believe that unobservable things are facts (such as that Jesus is real).
Facts are things such as The World is Round or Water Freezes at 32 degrees.
I agree with that but the fact is that a lot of people don't. Someone who has chosen God because they are afraid of hell has still chosen God. The idea would be that with time, they would come to see other reasons to make that choice.
That doesn't sound healthy to me. I guess someone would have to be indoctrinated at an early age to think in that manner. Having the threat of Hell looming over them, and then accepting there is a God out of fear. It's pretty sad. it may be why a lot of people turn away from Christianity later in life.
So the right choice is the right choice if and only if it's done for a reason that sounds healthy?
Not for everyone. Why does anyone need God?
Some might for emotional reasons. That's fine with me (I'm probably one of those).
If God decides to officially reveal himself, and tell us what He wants and why He created us, then there might be more people willing to accept God. Maybe not. I guess it would depend on what everyone thought about the situation.
Because God exists, that's why.
If God were merely a construct then it would be different.
That's your opinion. I have no proof God exists. Maybe you have some kind of proof for yourself.
My worldview is shattered at the moment, and I doubt my own previous beliefs. I still love God, whether he exists or not. I kind of hope He does. I'm pretty fond of Him. (Not the Christian God, by the way.)
Gods are constructs, that's why believers fail at everything when it comes to their religions. If God was real, we would all know it.
Unless God doesn't want us to know whether he's real or not. Or doesn't care. Or isn't as nice as most current believers in the Abrahamic God claim for some strange reason.
Why, specifically, would we all know it if God existed?
Then, no one would know and all believers who claim he is real are lying. Simple, really.
I don't think they are lying. Unless to themselves. I just think they are misinformed.
Not everyone thinks of God as you like Christians attempt to portray him you know. I don't. There are plenty of Hindus who believe in multiple Gods and Godessess,and there are Wiccans, etc.
Interesting how each of those Hindu "gods" is really a portrayal of one particular aspect, or facet of the One True Consciousness.
Christians also use such methods to portray aspects of their perceived "god." E.g., the Virgin Mary, Jesus, the various saints, various photos, paintings, statues, etc.
When you compare Hindus and Christians there and give the reasons, it sounds more like Catholicism that you are comparing it to. (Which does fall under the umbrella of "christian" in general) Their differences however, are fairly big sometimes, and in this case I only mention it because it seems to matter here in your description for the case of comparison to Hinduism. Like for instance, I am a Christian too, but the comparison you make isn't there for me in terms of what I believe from the bible, but I can see what you mean when I consider what Catholics believe. (Their bibles are even a bit different, theirs is bigger and includes more). The Catholics and Non Catholic Christians believe a lot of the same core things however. I never realized how many didn't realize the differences between the two. I didn't even know that many people don't seem to realize there was a huge portion of the population that are Christian and not Catholic until a couple decades ago. (I assumed it because of my own perspective and what I grew up with, the portion of the country I lived in, etc.) As I have grown and learned about the two more, I see more.
Ya know... a state of quandry is safer. Yes? Why pick??? Why risk standing for... something? People laugh and stare and make up the cutest little quips regarding one's intelligencia. Why have to CHOOSE??? The waters of indecision are cozy. Lukewarm even...
I KNOW THERE IS GOD. I cannot convince you of that. That is not my intention. Bible...
Kali? "Hell hath no fury like....."
Ganesh? "The human part of Ganesha represents that which is manifested, while the elephant part represents the unmanifested great being......" Please see http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_god … 0TFYKLQ5k4 All very fascinating stuff.
Oh, I certainly remember my Kali days. I can't say I miss her much though.
Well then! Since MANY people DO know him, that reveals the REAL liar... sorry Cas; LAIR...
Thank you ATM for your indirect truth. You HAVE been paying attention afterall!!!
Unless He only wanted some of us to know. Or He wanted all of us to know but many of us still don't believe for whatever reason.
I agree, simple really.
Ah yes, the "I am special and you are not" excuse.
Sorry, but if that were the case, we would all still know and billions of people on the planet choose to not believe it.
Got any other lame excuses?
But, that's exactly what it means. Believers think they are special over others, that they've been chosen to have God revealed to them. Ridiculous.
Some believers do. Some believers don't.
Some non-believers also believe they are special over others. Others are more humble. As with most character traits, there are numerous examples on both sides of the coin and on both sides of the aisle.
Exactly. Hence, those believers who do are being dishonest.
So what? That doesn't address the issue.
Uh, isn't that statement the exact kind of behavior you were complaining about earlier?
No. This is not the case of you calling me stupid and me returning the favor.
You stated, unequivocally and with no exceptions, that all believers think they're special because God chose them.
I pointed out that some do and some don't. Just like some unbelievers think themselves special and others don't, although not because they were 'chosen by God.'
You said that doesn't address the issue.
I pointed out that it did.
Since your first statement is a false accusation, I would implore you to retract it, that is, if you can show me where I specifically called you "stupid"?
Uh no, that's what believers are saying. I am simply following up on that logic, or lack thereof.
Sorry, it doesn't. There is still the contradiction of those who believe they are special. Saying some are and some aren't is not an answer.
Your repeated offers to 'dumb down' what you say for me is actually supposed to mean I'm so smart? No, it wasn't false.
Uh, no. All believers do not say that. I stand by what I said.
You're 'rebuttal' doesn't change what I said at all. Ignores it, yes. Changes it, no.
Okay, I tried to treat you like an adult.
When a believer says they have special powers no one bats an eye.
When a non-believer says they have special powers they are sent to get help.
Well what about when a non-believer calls a believer special when the believer said no such thing regarding what the non-believer said and seems to actually believe???
Because even among believers, there are skeptics.
Yet you seem to say nothing to those believers who make those claims? At least none that I've seen.
There's a lot of conversations I don't get involved in. I haven't read enough of cat's stuff to know exactly what she really does claim. If I got involved in these conversations, literally all I would do all day is be involved in these conversations. Remember when I said that sometimes I just get up for a few hours and when I come back there might be three or four whole pages of posts?
If it makes you feel any better, there are a lot of unbelievers who I don't talk to either.
Then celebrate!!! You must be special too. ...been revealing him for years now. You keep on closing your eyes and ears. But I know SOMETHING has seeped. Special is your new name! wear it proud. You deserve it. With your special self.
Uh...you don't really read posts do you??? Including your own. lol...
The POINT Dear Sir, is only some of us BELIEVE what we have been made to know. 'S got nothin' ta do wit being "special". Just FAITHFUL.
FYI... you know... I know you know most of what I do...tol'ja myself. so you ALL know... you just DON'T BELIEVE what you have come to know.
But, they usually don't and wind up living their lives in fear of nothing.
Wow jonny... you are smart! Your God DOES amount to nothing. Glad you know...
Convoluted, Corruptible, Convenient Convictions, Cgenaea.
Religion made up in your mind, drawing convenient ideas from whichever source you find attractive.
If I may interject, God wants us to go against our sin nature, not to punish us but that we may have a better life. A life of truth in His laws and commandments. Those whom the Father loves, he also chastises. This chastisement is not unlike a loving parent who disciplines his/her children when they screw up and do something they shouldn't do.
Not all are God's children because some refuse to follow after Him. God did not create man to be sinful but to honor Him.
Then, God either made a mistake in creating man not knowing he would be sinful or He did create man to be sinful and knew it? Which is it?
Either way, God is at fault, not us.
After all the time you have been in these forums, it seems you have not paid attention at all. God did not mess up, man did when he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
An excuse, but the same question/observation remains. God made Eve (and Adam) in such a way that the desire to sin (eat the apple) over rode their fear/love/obedience. This is God's "fault", not Eve's - she did what her nature required her to do and nothing more.
You think Eve did what she had to do; couldn't help but do; followed God's plan precisely??? That is SOOOOO funny. it does magically let many off the "hell" hook though. Hey. Maybe we don't need a hell at all. given your way, God would be the only one there!!!
You aren't paying attention to what I said. God messed up if He knew man would sin, or He messed up because He didn't know man would sin. Which is it?
Wasn't that you yesterday claiming maturity???
If God wants us to fight our sin and not do it, He should certainly have made the desire to be good stronger than the desire to sin.
But He didn't - He made the desire to sin far stronger than any opposing force. We know this because of the levels of sin we see in our fellow man and in ourselves. Given that God is perfect and did not make mistakes, He did it intentionally and has a reason for wanting man to sin, even to the point of ending in Hell. Perhaps He cut a deal with Satan to fill the fire pits with human bodies.
Tell a child not to touch something and the first thing they desire to do it touch it. This is rebellion against what is right and good. Man doesn't have the ability to fight against this nature on his own. Man messed up,
God is trying to fix it but he won't force you into submission. It is not a fight of flesh and blood but of spiritual powers. God has set before you life and death. It is up to you to choose which one you want.
"Man messed up"
Who designed and built man in such a way that he would mess up? (Hint: it wasn't man). You are rationalizing that God's work isn't God's, but man's, and it doesn't fly. God did the work; let God take the blame for a poor design (assuming that sin isn't what He actually wants and gets).
Nor is God trying to fix it; God, being omnipotent, could "fix" it in an eyeblink but chooses not to do so. He continues to allow (force, through design) man to sin for His own reasons, unknowable to us.
But, if God was all knowing, He would have known man would rebel. If He created us, that is His fault. So, God messed up.
It's all God's fault anyways, His error has nothing to do with us.
And perhaps He wants us to lean on Him so that He can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.
Just a thought.
Listen to the voice of a member of an elitist club!
There you go again wilderness: using a belief in God to "prove" god doesn't exist. This is not logical!!
Males are instructed not to play with a female spouse. Are there any other restrictions from God? Not the Catholic church, but God?
Completely as an aside, but the Catholic Church places no restrictions on a married couple on sex for purposes other than procreation. Sex is considered a bonding ritual as well as a procreative one. In case anyone cares.
According to what scripture is non-procreative sex in marriage a bonding ritual?
I don't know if the teaching references a specific scripture, tbh. The concept is that two people when they marry become one flesh, and there is no more intimate action between two people than sex. So the sexual act brings two people to greater intimacy.
So it's just something they made up as an excuse to have non-procreative sex.
Uh. Sure. Kinda like the concept of sex only for procreation was made up? Not been a huge concern for me so not something I ever really looked into in depth.
Well, you are in this thread. Discussing it.
Why, yes I am. LOL
I meant the sex within marriage specifically. I personally don't feel there's a need or a reason, nor does anyone have a right, to restrict it within marriage. Aside from obvious medical issues, if there are any.
I haven't really weighed in on the whole fornication part of the discussion. More or less, I was just tossing in some clarification about what I saw as wilderness's misconception about Catholic teaching.
The only thing I was really trying to get at anyway was that Catholic teaching (or any denomination for that matter) doesn't always follow what's actually in the Bible. They really do make stuff up, or interpret things wildly, in my opinion. Everyone does.
It's impossible not to, I think. Especially when there is a lot of contradictory things in the Bible. Interpretation is necessary, and not always done well.
The OP asked why Christians are so hung up on the sin of sexuality. I answered according to what Christians believe and follow, along with a bit of commentary.
You can hanky panky with whomever you wish to. Doesn't make it right nor does it make it good. .
I've heard of doggie style, but with a real dog???
I have not kept up with this thread, so not sure of all the posts though I read some. I agree with you there are some very horrible practices reported in the news and media and are truly are destructive to others. I think all sin is sin, and that we all have committed sins or broken God's laws. Do you take the fact that some people aren't weighing in or talking about the other stuff to mean they don't care as much? For instance, I thought back to my last few months at my job, and the news stories that came up where people did anything "bad." The stuff that came up had to do more with terrorist stuff, and some kidnapping stories (and attempted kidnappings) and a murder story, etc. Not once did the Christians I work with in the last few months speak of "sexual sins." I know by what was talked about that they do care about the other stuff. Just sharing from my little corner of the world there.
If you are correct though about an almost fixation on particular sexual sins by the religious I can only speculate what the reasons would be. In this thread, has anyone brought up the idea that it could be considered one of the more "celebrated sins", compared to all the other sins? Depending on what part of the country and world you are in, you may see it or not, but you can for sure see it in media, and news stories, etc.
There also is a big push to change the actual thinking of many people in regards to certain things. People think one way, and some seem to not be at peace with that and are making it news themselves sometimes. I don't recall seeing such a push for that before, so to see a possible push back wouldn't be crazy. (I was thinking hard about the possible reasons that would be the case that you asked your question! I know these are controversial, but I am being sincere in what I think SOME might be thinking.)
Perhaps it is easy to focus on what they themselves are possibly struggling with? So its a response to inner denials, etc? They might fight hard against something they struggle with themselves perhaps, which would be a bit hypocritical. (Another sin, of course.) Bottom line, I don't know for sure. These are some ideas out there that I see floating about. I do think that Jesus himself would encourage the most vocal against others crowd, to look inward first, and stop their own sin. I say that based on my studies, but what do I know!
Maybe it's just that everyone sort-of already agrees that murder and stealing etc. are bad.
But not everyone agrees whether certain sexual practices are bad.
Christians as a whole understand that sin is sin, and one isn't worse than another. Isiah chapter 1 in verse 18 describes sins that are scarlet and crimson, probably referring to murder and adultery, but states both can be cleansed. Biblically sex outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage is sinful, but then so is stealing a paper clip from your work. Sin is not for Christians, myself included to judge, since judgement comes from God. But Christians are enabled to recognize sinful behaviors, both that they can avoid them, and teach a better way. On a side note, there are numerous articles online regarding the affect sex has on dopamine or other receptors in the brain. That might explain why society as a whole is fixated on sex.
Hey all, Jonny gives his regards to everyone in the forums. I got this message on my profile from him, I don't think he will mind me sharing some of it, considering what he says in it.
"I have been banned from posting for 3 days, cannot think why, but will be back soon I hope. Please give my regards to everyone in the forums, especially those who disagree with me yet continue their generous tolerance."
I don't know what would have caused the ban either. I don't get the opportunity to read everything due to time. I don't find Jonny posting ban worthy stuff. He seems very fair minded overall that I have seen, and not ever hateful. He even lets me ask some tough questions, lol, and responds fairly all the times I have seen. Anyway, was sorry to see that, and just wanted to share. See you soon Jonny.
All I keep thinking is, what did I miss??? Banning should be banned. I hate that button.
Haha, that is a good point. What did we miss? Was there some knock down drag out we missed? I saw someone mentioning a gentle warning about something, but that was all I saw, and that seemed to be amended.
Oh yeah! I do remember a request to edit banable content. Even then, I was at a loss but considered it not important enough to investigate. People get so sensitive after spitting their fiery messages. I guess being mean DOES thin the skin.
Here is the thing... If a post is edited like that at the suggestion of a friend that caught something (which is so nice, because we can all say things at times and not really have thought it fully through..), then could it still have been ban worthy? If you delete it, or edit it, isn't that self moderation, so to speak?
I have no idea. I need to read the rules. If when reported a copy of original content was flagged and/or sent. How else could the offense be known.
Yes, we all have our moments. But I say if you throw discomfort; it may more than likely reverb. (One of my issues) the button is about bitterness or spite. Neither are productive emotions.
If you observe well you will realize that it takes two or more in agreement before a any meaningful achievement can take place. In every pair, one complements another, there by producing the third party. Look at the atom. The electron interacts with the proton and so produces the neutron. So in human level, whenever any sexual activity takes place there is a beautiful harvest being reaped. But due to the density and pollution in this part of creation, a big breach and conflict is not news. This conflict is the sexual immorality God (nature) is trying to resolve. Because before you can ever experience peace in any situation, there must be order and restoration.
This is why our God warns us to abstain from all form of sexual immorality. To have sex is no sin. In fact, sex experience improves ones spiritual growth and well being. But the abuse brings one down to hell slowly or speedily.
If they were true Christans, they wouldn't be.
A true Christian is one in whom the Holy Spirit of God dwells. (Romans 8:9)
The Holy Spirit has absolutely no problem with this mentality.
I am not inclined to read the 1000+ previous posts. Sorry.
The human species is preoccupied with sex, as are all other species for that matter. For whatever reason, that is the way this reality construct was designed.
And so it goes...
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
1 Corinthians 6:18
Okay, so I take it from those scriptures you feel your God made us the way he did (with desires and urges) however doesn't want us to act on those desires and urges? He made some of us with desires and urges that correspond to his wishes and some of us that have other desires and wishes? I guess that means he gave some an easy ride to heaven and others a more difficult or impossible ride to heaven. Seems rather unfair and unrealistic to me. It also seems to me that the more likely case is that men made these laws which persecute those who are unlike themselves.
By your logic, if we have desires and urges then on those premises, the actions can be justified. Your logic is extremely flawed. Why does society try to bend our desires and urges? When a man has angered another man and his urge is to take that man's life is he justified through his angry desire? How about when a Man lusts after another mans wife and she lusts back, does that attraction justify their actions? Maybe we should just behave as the animals do. For us believers, we believe that there is a higher calling. That God has a higher standard for earthly behavior (Sermon on the mount, Fruits of the Spirit, Ten Commandments, etc.). I'm not bashing anyone here, you are the one trying to initiate debate. I am completely comfortable in my beliefs and it appears you are in yours. I don't think there is any persecution, just the sharing of a certain way of believing.
Society tries to bend our desires and urges because we have inappropriate ones, placed there by a god. Not because society put them there and THEN said don't succumb to them.
The illogic and stupidity lies in saying "See, I put a fine fruit tree in front of you; don't touch it or I will kill you". Wouldn't it make more sense not to put the tree there in the first place? Or is it just a case of sadism at work?
Considering that neither of us are going to dissuade the other on our viewpoints this will be my last response. My original goal was just to share a few Bible verses as to why we concern our selves with sexual sins. I was then challenged with a very illogical argument by which I responded. Now, perhaps a more daunting task; to explain Genesis. Many Christian Scholars today, including Francis Collins, the lead researcher on the Human Genome Project in 1999, believe the original account in Genesis of Adam and Eve to be a metaphor. The book was written by Moses long after creation took place and would have a hard time holding up in a historical analysis. Perhaps it is a story just to give the ancient people some time of backdrop for the race of men, maybe it is a completely accurate account. I do not claim to have the ability to answer this question. However, that story has absolutely no bearing on Christianity. What I believe is that there is a God. In God's attempt to bring man into what God intends us to become, he sent Jesus. Jesus, God incarnate on earth, was born of a virgin, died on a cross, and was raised in 3 days. Although they are not here to vouch for us today, somewhere around 500 people saw the risen Christ. It would be rather difficult to refute 500 eye witnesses in a court of law. This is the only thing that really matters. This is what I hang my faith on. The whole old testament can be partial truths, yet when Jesus steps out of the tomb...
"Here's pardon for transgressions past,
It matter not how black their cast,
And O my soul, with wonder view,
For sins to come, here's pardon too.
Fully discharged by Christ I am,
From Christ's tremendous curse and blame."
REV. C. H. Spurgeon
Wow, that's pretty flimsy reasoning upon which to hang ones entire faith.
Yes, you could easily refute 500 eye witness accounts of people who claim they saw someone whom they believed were dead, no problem. That would never even get to trial.
James, I have no problems with you believing what you believe in relation to Jesus, etc., although I do not believe them at all.
The problem I have is when those beliefs are taken as absolute "truth," and used to judge anyone else. Sure, let's have good codes of conduct for our living together in community. Let the Code support us and guide us.
But there is one human tendency that so often comes in the way of success..... the desire to look out at others, try to deal with their "problems," in stead of our own.... the latter being the more difficult, so it's easier to point the finger.
I have indicated in previous post to you that those writings from which you quoted are directed at a community 2000 years ago, in a different culture, in different circumstances. They can only be understood in that context, not brought forward and placed in front of us in a distorted fashion. Using them in order to lay blame or judge others is not appropriate.
Sorry, I didn't get my point across very well. It was not my intent to question Genesis in specific, but rather the idea that a god give us all these neat-o gifts and then forbid us their use.
The obvious inference is that we are being tested, but that doesn't hold up; an omniscient god already knows what our response will be and doesn't NEED a test. An alternative is that the Christian god is a sadist, but few will accept that, whether true or not. Just like accepting that the god is NOT omniscient; a forbidden though not to be considered.
Good points, James Bonny!
I have no revelation on the literal or symbolic nature of much of the OT. I know his Word is truth, whether that is truth that is often symbolic or literal. Also, we shouldn't demand that the Word read as if written by God's own hand since he used men (who then had to put it into limited words), yet we cannot dismiss any of the Word just because he used men, as we know the men were inspired by the Holy Spirit. I do know that God is the Creator of all things and the Ruler of all things; that he spoke and it was so. And I am content with that.
Just wanted to give an AMEN to this - "In God's attempt to bring man into what God intends us to become, he sent Jesus. Jesus, God incarnate on earth, was born of a virgin, died on a cross, and was raised in 3 days. Although they are not here to vouch for us today, somewhere around 500 people saw the risen Christ. It would be rather difficult to refute 500 eye witnesses in a court of law."
No reason at all to debate, unless of course you try to implement your beliefs on others. For instance the bible says that homosexuals shall be put to death. You are welcome to believe that if you like as long as you don't act on that belief or as long as you don't intent to prevent same sex partners from having the same privileges as yourself.
So, if two people of any sex decide to have consensual sex and or a relationship then their actions are justified. Murder is not consensual nor is rape.
The bible also says all liars will be put to death and from birth all are liars to greater or lesser degrees. So all deserve and will be put to death according to the righteous requirements of the holy and righteous God. BUT for Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior, who has paid the price for all liars and all who sin in ANY manner. Because of Jesus' righteousness and sacrifice, you and I and everyone may receive the undeserved status of righteous and may forever live with the righteous Father. Not to any of us sinners by nature be any glory, but to him who loved us and gave himself for us be all glory both now and forevermore! Amen and amen!
Great! I get to do whatever I want then, with no consequences! Praise Jesus!
So glad to know that at least someone wants me, Jane....
"By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Romans 6:2)
cat333, this is one of the major reasons I have turned away from the christian religion. Call me "fallen," whatever you like. It is one of the biggest, most nonsensical, mental constructions I have ever come across.... and from people who in most other respects are sensible and intelligent.
But, your choice. Who am I to argue?
Yet how true that when the Spirit resides within us we are the most MISERABLE of any sinners - far more miserable than any others who sin. I know, I've grieved the Spirit within me in this way, choosing my own will over His, ignoring His specific commands to me and going after my own desires. While we cannot without great difficulties willfully continue in sin when we are in Christ and he is in us, we all keep stumbling as long as we are in the flesh (and we even may have whole seasons when we give in to our own desires over his), but little by little God transforms us into the likeness of Jesus Christ. We don't do this ourselves; he does it. We don't go to God AFTER being transformed; it only happens through him.
Can I ask you a very personal question? Does your desire to continue in a homosexual life prevent you from even considering God who might sooner or later ask you to give it up? I don't ask this in any judgmental manner, as I do not consider myself in ANY way "better" than a person who happens to be homosexual. In fact, while this may sound strange to you, to a degree I identify strongly with homosexual men because I was once more into homosexual men than heterosexual men and didn't want anything to do with "normal" relationships, with which I had issues for a variety of reasons. I spent my early life avoiding intimacy and these normal relationships just didn't interest me. But heterosexual men persisted and eventually I gave in and things changed and at 34 I ended up getting married; and I understand that in this way my life was more easily "molded" to the commands to us (though I have still had many struggles to do His will and follow this or that command). None of this is anything I really wanted to put out there because of the judgments by others, BUT your eternal life is worth far more than my reputation/status and temporary well-being.
Our lives here are SO temporary, whether one day or 100 years; eternal life is what matters. Why let ANYTHING you desire just for now influence you when it comes to eternity? Soon enough none of us will be gay or straight or anything in between. The Lord is our husband, whether we are male or female (and in Christ there is not even male or female). I'm not asking you to give up your homosexual life. I'm asking you simply as a person who happens to be homosexual to honestly and genuinely seek God. If the Spirit then transforms you, let it be so. If you are transformed only after you leave this earth, well, welcome to the club of "never fully transformed people until Jesus' arrival".
If you seek God in all truth, and he reveals himself to you, then you will know the truth, and nothing else will matter. Once he has really revealed himself to you, there will be no more simply deciding against belief because at this time your belief will be beyond just thinking you believe something; it will be KNOWING with all certainty. And then whatever you like or dislike about His commands will really be irrelevant because you will know and understand that there is nowhere else to go for the truth and life. It will be as this in John 6:68, "Jesus said to the twelve, 'You do not want to go away also, do you?' Simon Peter answered Him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God'".
You may ask me a personal question, sure.
Based upon my non-acceptance of the very existence of such a "god" as you suggest, there is no "god" that can ask me to give "it" up. It is humans who would want me to "give it up." What exactly they want me to give up is always the big question. If they want me to give up the "Gay Lifestyle," there is no such thing. Unless they mean the ability to have a loving relationship with a person of my own gender. Beyond that, such a "lifestyle" can involve living in a flat together, sharing the rent, the household chores, the bathroom, the bed. Welcoming each other's folks around for dinner, or an evening drink, or baby sitting for one's previous heterosexual spouse. Even giving a kiss to each other on the doorstep, as one or both go off to work. What on earth can anyone see in such a "lifestyle" that is in any way bad?
I know lots of couples, of guys and girls, in various age groups, who have wonderfully integrated and sharing lives together. They really LOVE each other. Would your "god" want them to give up their lives to support prudery? What a selfish god!
Oh sure, sacrifice, human sacrifice. Nice God you've got. Goat killing he liked, but human/god killing did the trick. Do you ever listen to yourself?
He sacrificed HIMSELF for you and me and all the world!
Sorry, that is not true, Jesus was tried and convicted by the Roman State to crucifixion, just like many, many, many other criminals of the Roman State, no difference whatsoever.
Jesus didn't jump up on a cross and nail himself to it, did he?
No, he wasn't!
He was found innocent by the Romans.
It was the crowd that demanded his crucifixion.
And, no, he didn't crucify himself. What an absurd statement!
So he didn't sacrifice himself? Good I'm glad we are clear on that.
To sacrifice oneself and to crucify oneself is totally different. Jesus gave all of His being for the sins of the world but he did not kill Himself.
That makes no sense. A person cannot give anything willingly if someone else kills them. That would imply every other person who was crucified by the Roman State also gave willingly themselves to take on the sins of the world.
It's your response here that "makes no sense".
We (in Australia, at least) refer to our war dead, as having "paid the ultimate sacrifice" for our nation. They died on the battle field to keep our country free.
How can you say that a person, KILLED by someone else, made no sacrifice?
If a parent steps in front of a child, to prevent the child from being killed, and dies doing it, is no sacrifice to you?
Neither of those are even remotely the same thing. Strawmen arguments.
TRUTH is not truth because you followed the human-made rules regarding "logical fallacies". Truth is above and beyond any debate tactics; it is above and beyond our beliefs. One may present the TRUTH with all manner of violations to the construct of logical fallacies, and it is NO LESS THE TRUTH. Another may follow every human rule regarding the fallacies, and it is NO MORE THE TRUTH.
When as therapist in juvenile detention, I was subpoenaed as a witness for one of the boys being tried as an adult, I watched the "game" going on between the two lawyers and the judge. None of them were as concerned with the TRUTH as they were the "game" - Who was putting out the better "argument", the "more convincing" point. The boy's life depended on which lawyer played the game better. And the judge seemed actually amused, and pointing out good and bad game tactics, but seemed to have no real interest in either the truth or the boy whose life was dependent on this. It was SICKENING to observe.
I know many of the atheists and some of my brothers/sisters-in-Christ have made use of the logical fallacies, and I respect many of those who have and all or most of their points, etc., BUT if I may be so blunt as to say - SCREW the "logical fallacies" and all game playing by people everywhere!
But according to Christianity he didn't really die did he? So no sacrifice was made and nothing was lost.
Every ask yourself why your God demands sacrifices? What could he possible get out of watching us lose things we need to survive?
That's not true. According to Christianity Jesus very much DID die, and was dead for three days. He came back to life. The physical death was very real, and the resurrection is equally real.
And, we know that the resurrection was real because people come back from the dead all the time, it's a very common occurrence.
We'll ignore the fact rigor mortis sets in after 12 hours and putrefaction after 2-3 days.
Why would rigor mortis and putrefaction be a challenge for the One who formed you in the womb, created your body and being, and created an entire universe? Which is more difficult - to create your life in the first place or to raise you to life again? With God all things are possible!
Before any human existed, the idea of humanity would be an impossibility. It is ONLY POSSIBLE because IT IS SO. One day you will see that through Jesus Christ those who die are raised to life again, just as Jesus was. This is only an impossibility because it is HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE. God is not human, he is not limited by our impossibilities. Until he does a new thing, that thing is always impossible. But WITH GOD NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE!
Obviously, the entire story is a fraud.
So, Jesus never died, the whole thing was a fraud.
Jesus Christ - God in the form of the Son and in a human body - absolutely died! The fact that God then RAISED HIM to life again should be considered no more "impossible" for God than the impossibility of any of our initial creations! And the same "human impossibility" that God performed with Jesus, will be performed with us on that promised day, when we like Jesus will be given our new spiritual bodies (to replace our bodies of flesh), just as Jesus is in the new body that replaced the flesh.
It is irrelevant what decay the body of flesh experiences before or after death because the new body will not be one of human flesh that is subject to pain, sickness, deterioration and death. It will be a new spiritual body, and all the results of the curse of disobedience and the choice to follow Satan rather than God ("you will surely die") will be no more. In this we delight and have our hope. Praise be to God for his mercy, love, promises and faithfulness to all those promises!
No. What you will ignore is the testimony of many individuals who have shared their experiences.
Each, and every one that I have seen offered for "evidence" has been written of as fabrication by the likes of you.
I have no doubt some are fake, but will not concede that ALL testimonies are!
That's why it's called a miracle. People at that time and place also knew that rigor mortis sets in and putrefaction occurs. They didn't expect to see Him alive, walking around and not at all decayed.
Jesus DID die. God raised him to life again. And he will likewise raise all those who have put their faith and hope in him through Jesus Christ. To him be all glory!
Jesus is fully God and fully man. And men can die. They do it all the time.
But, Gods can't die, hence Jesus did not die, He just fooled everyone into believing that.
But still Jesus the man did die. Really, no fooling. Lack of breathing, no blood flowing, didn't walk or talk or eat.
But then he started walking around again (according to the story). There have been people who people thought died, were buried and then woke up. They were not dead. So if he got up and started walking around he was not dead.
Perhaps mostly dead (Miracle Max).
I was thinking of Monty Python and the Holy grail "but I'm not dead yet. I'm feeling better"
"Fear of being buried alive is the fear of being placed in a grave while still alive as a result of being incorrectly pronounced dead. The abnormal, psychopathological version of this fear is referred to as taphophobia (from Greek τάφος - taphos, "grave, tomb" and φόβος - phobos, "fear"), which is translated as "fear of graves".
Before the advent of modern medicine, the fear was not entirely irrational. Throughout history, there have been numerous cases of people being buried alive by accident. In 1905, the English reformer William Tebb collected accounts of premature burial. He found 219 cases of near live burial, 149 actual live burials, 10 cases of live dissection and 2 cases of awakening while being embalmed."
"Dead" people were not always dead, even to the "coroners" of the times...
Just read a few months ago about a documented case where a doctors wife died and was buried, but when the grave robbers opened her casket she got up and walked home and knocked on the door. The husband answered the door and dropped dead.
Yeah. And how many of these people were literally whipped to within an inch of their lives (we're talking with a whip that had pieces of bone and pottery embedded in it so that it ripped the flesh from the bone) then nailed up on the cross (a horrible way to die, you die by asphyxiation) then had a spear thrust in their side, then got shut up in a cave (cold, like meat locker cold) with a gigantic stone rolled in front, then were found walking around three days later with holes in their hands?
In case you're wondering, the answer would be none.
You then used modern methods of checking brain waves on every crucifixion victim, at the time of the supposed "death"? Or is it just another assumption/opinion, akin to the existence of a god out there?
After all, we already supposedly know of one case - why not another half dozen or so?
That is a fallacious demand for 'proof'. No one checked any of the people, no matter how dead they were, for brain activity so that's just being picky, not logical. They didn't have the technology back then and I can't believe I feel like I have to go to this length just to try and cut off another pointless argument.
In any case, okay. Name one case of someone who got scourged then hung up then had a spear stuck in their side then got tossed into a freezing cave with oxygen cut off for multiple days and then got up and walked around?
Faith is supposedly bad, but then it is ok to have incredible faith in such things as bodies surviving those kinds of things in order to maintain skepticism.
I am truly skeptical of that degree of skepticism.
Faith is not really bad, as long as you understand that faith is simply hope. I hope god exists, is okay. I KNOW god exists is not so much. It's like saying that upon waking up in the morning that you know that at sometime in the night you went on a river cruise, when no one else in the house can verify it.
But if you DID go on a river cruise in the night, then it is acceptable to say so, even if no one else in the house knew and could verify it. The truth would exist without the verification of others.
I was referring to the faith of the atheists that think it is much more likely that Jesus didn't actually die considering all the details. He would have had to been scourged, hung on a cross, pierced with a spear, wrapped i spices and linens, laid in a tomb with a secure and heavy stone, guarded, stayed in their 3 days like that, and was so "ok" he stayed and hung out with people, for 40 more days.
If there is enough faith that he was faking the whole death thing enough that someone offered up their very expensive family tomb, after blood and water came out, after he was limp on the cross which would have suffocated him if nothing else did, etc...... then THAT is some serious faith. it is incredibly unreasonable considering the details to believe in the far lesser conclusion than what is obvious.
About the suffocation, they had to push up with their feet to take a breath on the cross. I think when he gave up his spirit, it was really over. No one in any of the accounts even suggests it.
When we are talking that kind of faith in such an unlikely thing an for a hoax which is what it would have to be...... well that seems too much to really consider as plausible. The behavior of the disciples also, so much wouldn't line up. I mean people are welcome to such a belief but it is one I wouldn't personally understand.
Look guys, we were just playing with the idea that he didn't die like many have in the past only to wake up later and walk around. It's just something that happens. I personally don't think he ever got up again. I think that part was made up later, just as the stories of Mohammad rising up to the heavens. However people have been declared dead and have been buried and then woken up. That's a fact. Do any of you Christians believe that Mohammad rose to the heavens? It's written in a book and there were witnesses?
The fact is the concept of sacrifice (both animal and human) that runs throughout the bible is rather sad and a little embarrassing if you ask me. A god demanding animals are killed because of our errors and sometimes because of our bodily functions is just silly. What is even more silly is you God enjoying the smell of the freshly slaughtered animal. Does that not strike any of you oddly? Is it not barbaric and primitive?
What does that even mean? God loves the smell of death?
God is a creator of life and then restorer of life that is lost, as he sees fit to do do and/or wants to.
The fact that it makes no sense should be a clue. Something to reason. Intuition was given to us by evolution and was used to help us survive the African savanna. So if you are using it to find the correct answer to anything other than survival it's most likely not right. That is where reason comes in. For instance your intuition may tell you to dislike those from another tribe or those who don't look like yourself, but reason will tell you that it's wrong to do that.
Quite the contrary. Seriously, if (as the Bible says fairly often) 'the life is in the blood' (this is why Jews are required to drain the blood from animals they slaughter and are not allowed to eat roadkill) and the way to set things right after committing a sin (which separates us from God) was to propitiate with blood, then it does not logically follow that 'God loves the smell of death.' And just to be clear about that, Jesus made the ultimate blood sacrifice once and for all so that there would not need to be any more animal sacrifices. If God really loved the smell of death, why remove that from His holiest place, the temple in Jerusalem?
Genesis 8 20-21
20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
Pleasing aroma? Why would the killing of innocent animals please a God?
So you're saying that the pleasing aroma was the smell of fresh kill? Because that's not what I got out of it.
Besides, how often have I said you can't just take one section of the Bible out of context. Look at the whole thing (as I did.)
Well Chris, the text leading up to this was instruction from God to Noah to sacrifice animals. What do think the pleasing aroma was?
"he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."
Further how does anyone know what a God said in his heart? Which I can only imagine means speaks to himself.
Please by the aroma of slaughter? Should be a clue.
No. Try 'pleased by the aroma of cooking'. Again reading the actual text makes that pretty clear.
How can we know what God says in His heart? Because He told us!
Nowhere, not one place in the Bible ever at any point, does it say that God was pleased by the scent of fresh blood or rotting carcasses. Burnt offerings are exactly that, burnt. You know, roasted, cooked, charred, otherwise prepared using flame. Not at all unlike the way we like the aroma of cooking food.
There is no mention of cooking, just burning freshly killed meat. And while you may burn your meat to charcoal, most of us prefer it rare/medium rare with no burning involved.
You do not, in other words, know what is in God's heart - the assumption that He never lies is not only unwarranted but biblically shown to be untrue.
Where does it say he cooked them? Slaughtered on the alter and pleased by the smell, further why would God like the smell of cooked meat? Does he have a nose, does he eat? Should be a clue.
All right, then what does burnt offering mean? I never heard this one before, but maybe you have a dictionary that equates 'burnt' with 'freshly slaughtered and left to rot.'
Sorry Chris, I don't think you understand what a burnt offering means. A burnt offering was not eaten and not cooked. It was a sacrifice which means killed but not eaten. As the story goes God ordered Abraham to offer his son, Isaac, in a burnt offering in Genesis 22, do you think he was supposed to be cooked and eaten?
"The Hebrew word for “burnt offering” actually means to “ascend,“ literally to “go up in smoke.” The smoke from the sacrifice ascended to God, “a soothing aroma to the LORD”"
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/burnt-offer … z32PINCzyX
So, once again… this should be a clue that something is amiss. Why would any God enjoy the smell of a slaughtered animal or the sacrifice we humans make to show our respect? Is it not barbaric and waste of life and energy?
As for meat being sacrificed, I have studied the Old Testament books where this goes into more detail. The amounts and different kinds of sacrifices were often actually used for food for the priest very often. There were grains, and all kinds of things. So its actually not a crazy idea, the suggestion it was for food, because it often was food for priests. Recalling from memory here, but there were very strict rules regarding this also.
As for smelling good in general (not speaking of God here) meat on a barbeque smells like heaven to many people!! Its actually not a crazy idea in that sense.
As for God being pleased in any way.....the way I had always thought is that when the children of God are sorry for their sins and are making things right with God, this restores their relationship. Anyone that has ever been at odds with those they love, know that it is a pleasing thing for the restoration to take place. It is one way to look at it, and they were obeying God as he had commanded them.
There is something to the idea of blood, or so it seems. Someone said life is in the blood, and we know that is true for us. We are alive in part, because of our own blood. Without it we aren't alive, and people donate it to help save lives. The idea of atoning for sins, restoring life for what was taken away from it.... Sin does bring death and distance from the creator of all life. Its not "free" to sin. It seems to be an idea that is expressed, that there is a cost. It is part of what pointed to Jesus and his ultimate and once and for all sacrifice. No more sacrifices needed, his was the ultimate because he was perfect. His sacrifice satisfied all past, present and future debts from sin to God, to those that believe in his name that want life.
It seems to be the terms God has set, though many reject it. Often, it is so twisted beyond recognition, and those reasons are the ones often given for their rejecting of it, as we see. God doesn't delight in the death of things, he delights in the restoring of life where death was imminent, and is happy when things are made right. The idea of restitution or "terms" that come with breaking of laws is not foreign to us in our societies either.
You're not disproving my point at all. No one ever said anything about eating. And 'going up in smoke' would be, um, cooking? Roasting?
When Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, they took wood with them for the fire.
Everything you cite just proves my point.
Really? You mean that you keep pointing out that burnt actually means, you know, burnt but then keep denying that it does and when I point out your inconstancy this is what you resort to?
Yes, it is.
What's sad is what you are defending. You are know defending your God's love of the smell smoked wasted meat. Please give this some thought.
Alright, let's think about this. God, as described, is the creator of the natural world. It seems that death is the only way to pass from this realm to that one. The burning of an animal chemically returns the elements that make up that animal back into the natural cycle.
I know a lot of people here want to make it seem as though dying is some horrible thing, but the fact is its a natural, inevitable, part of life. Everything dies. We will all wither away and the elements that make up each of us will change to another state and continue the process. It's the way of nature, and if God is truly the creator of nature, it is the way of God.
Life feeds on life. We can't live on eating rocks. We have to eat living things. Plants and animals. All life lives on living things. So, things must die for you to live. So what else would you expect of this God who is the creator of this process? Or maybe a better question would be, what is it about this that makes your 'naturally evolved mind' think this is wrong, or something that needs defending?
Please say it's not so? You are defending this as well?
Does it really make sense to sacrifice animals and people to please god. By sacrifice I mean kill and not eat. And lets say it's as Chris says "burnt". Not only does the animals remains (energy) not go into the ground it is wasted energy to unneeded fire (heat). Do you also think it's necessary to kill and waste animals after a women have given birth or had her period? More sacrifice is need if it's a girl born as girls are more unclean? You guys defend this stuff.
I don't know about you guys but I was taught that throwing away food was a sin and that killing animals wasn't pleasant but was something that was done for our survival. As a matter of fact we don't really even need to eat animals to survive and if the entire cattle industry stopped right now we would have the room and resources to feed the world. My weekend bike ride leads my by fields and fields of cattle corn and cattle.
But I guess we need to learn our ethics from the bible. Kill animals and toss them away to please the gods. The compassion. Can you guys not really see anything wrong here.
I find the topic fascinating. I see insights through this into God's nature. These are things that go right to the heart of the natural world and how we now understand it.
That animal not going into the ground doesn't mean that animal's remains don't go back into the cycle of nature. It's elements 'rise' up into the stratosphere. Just like all the rest of us, the remains of that animal go on to become other things. They're the building blocks of nature, constantly recycled, constantly renewed.
Think about it like this. Nothing lives in this world. Everything dies. The only way out of this world, the only way to move on to the next phase, whatever that may be, is through death. Based on what's described in the bible, it is possible to be out of sync with God/nature so that when you do pass on you cannot pass on into God's realm. In the case of sacrifice, the animal sacrificed has to be "clean". Can't be tainted.
It's all about our will and what our will wants. To sacrifice an animal that you could have eaten shows that your willing to give up something the will wants for an ideal. It's truly a sacrifice. It's a showing of over-riding one's own will for something greater. It's an offering of something of value to you.
I think this says a lot about the passing from one realm to another. Since free will was created here, and because our actions through free will can actually make us unsuitable to pass on correctly, that means there's a very real separation between God's realm and this one. It's a safe barrier that protects the other side from our unnatural ways. It gives insight into just how powerful this free will capability is. An entire reality had to be created, with a barrier between this one and that one, for us to have free wills with our own minds and wills.
It just makes sense. Death is the only way out. Death is necessary for life. We are animals. We eat other animals. That's how our bodies evolved. Because we were better at getting nourishment by killing other things than others. It is the way of this world. So, of course, the God that created this natural world would be interested in those things that go right to the heart of that.
What I find most odd, is that you don't seem to find it odd at all that your mind, which was only made possible through feeding on life, now seems to find this detestable. How does that make sense? You're talking about compassion for the animals you have to eat to survive. That same mind evolved to make us more successful in that very endeavor. So how does it make sense for this mind to evolve to then find these practices "bad"?
I realize this all sounds barbaric to your modern ears, but can you maybe see it from my side? I'm really trying to understand this god-less existence, yet we keep running into stuff like this. Where this over-sensitive mindset that finds things in the bible so horrible is supposed to have come with no soul and no God involved. It just doesn't make sense. It's akin to you, as an oxygen-breather, speaking out against breathing.
This is moral and ethical to you? Is this how we behave? If you've done something wrong in your wires eyes does she ask you to kill a goat and burn it because she enjoys the smell? Upon the boat finally touching land why again did Noah have to sacrifice clean animals to please the Gods? What is are clean animals. Noah brought all those clean animals aboard just to kill when they touched land.
Sounds blood thirsty to me. Barbaric as well. Wasn't he supposed to teach us ethics?
Rad, this is a perfect example of why I can never accept the viewpoint you're speaking from. To borrow from what you said to Chris, " Please give this some thought."
No matter how strong of an argument you come up with against God, the alternative viewpoint, the one you're speaking from, must offer an explanation just as complete or it fails. My viewpoint offers consistent answers across the board whether it deals with what's observed in nature or what's observed in human behavior. While from the very viewpiont you're speaking from, the argument your posing here makes no sense.
Here you are speaking of morals and ethics and what you deem to be "barbaric", yet from your view life is something that evolved through pure chance. No guiding hand, no ultimate purpose, no caring creator. Life evolved feeding on life. We still eat living things. For you and I to be here, sustaining life for decades, things have to die to provide for us, consistently. You can't eat an animal that's been dead for months. Sustaining each of our lives requires fresh kills. Now we do it systematically, and try to inject as much civility into it as we can. We get fresh cuts of meat that have been all cleaned up and wrapped in plastic. But for that fresh cut of meat to be there a cow had to be bashed in the head and killed, gutted, and then cut apart. The same goes with chickens, except the head bashing part, and pigs. Unless you're a vegetarian then you've participated in this ritual as well. Even vegetarians have to uproot living things to eat.
Now, from my viewpoint it makes sense that you would see this stuff in the bible as barbaric. From yours, not so much. From mine there is a spiritual part of the self, a soul, that inherently finds things about this natural world barbaric. That finds some bodily functions downright gross. This spiritual self isn't 'of' the natural world. It exists beyond it, which is the only way your objections make any sense. It doesn't make sense from the viewpoint you're speaking from. Asking me questions about whether I find this moral or ethical. By what standard?
It's easy to pose arguments against things in the bible. We're so far removed from those times and that culture, that it's easy for those of us who have grown up in a "civilized" culture to turn our nose up at some of the things it speaks of and deem it 'immoral' or 'unethical'. But the disconnect, that I often try to get you to really look at, is that the alternative viewpoint you're offering has to make sense across the board as well. Existence exists as it does, and therefore requires explanation. So whatever competing viewpoint you're speaking from must offer explanations just as cohesive and complete as mine, or it will always be inferior.
You're so busy posing arguments against the God of the bible, have you ever really fleshed your viewpoint out? Does it hold up? How do these questions your asking even make sense in that light? What are ethics and morals from that viewpoint? How does it make sense that we humans existing for a few generations in 'civilized' cultures would leave us looking at something that came naturally to us not that long ago as 'barbaric' now? We're all bloodthirsty. Why do you expect something different? Explain that from your point of view. How do you find something as natural as spilling blood and death so unethical and immoral and barbaric now? When its these very things that made you living here now even possible?
Here are some links to explain how evolution is not based on pure chance...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat … nt-chance/
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolutio … ident.html
I appreciate the links. There's a lot there. I'm still in the process of reading through them.
To be clear, when I speak of 'pure chance' I'm speaking of it not being a deliberate or purposeful process. I understand that randomly mutated traits only propagate when they prove successful, therefore not totally by 'chance'. Though there's a level of pure chance involved if those mutations, and the characteristics that result, are truly random.
What I'm trying to get at is explaining the evolving mind in a way that includes this viewpoint we 'civilized' humans now hold that perfectly natural things observed in the natural world seem 'barbaric' to us. Are we really so far removed from our 'animalistic' past that these minds of ours, which presumably evolved the same way, now sees our own bodies as gross and sees perfectly natural occurrences as 'barbaric'? How does that make any sense? Presumably, the mind we now have evolved as it did because it made those who had it more successful at surviving and procreating in an environment that called for hunting, killing, spilling blood, etc. Now, this same mind, forged by that same barbaric natural world, somehow finds itself above such behavior? Explain.
I still don't think you understand what I've been saying because you haven't addressed it yet. I don't find killing animals to eat barbaric at all. I have a few chopped up chickens in my fridge that need to be skinning before I BBQ them tonight. It's the killing of an animal to please a God and not eating it. The God of the bible has given lots of rules for us to live by that is supposed to make us sin less, but I see wasting food when people are starving a unethical thing to do.
If I had the time I'd attempt to explain ethics and how the mind works, but I fear it would do no good. If you don't see what's wrong with a God asking for animals to be killed to clean a women of sin who gave birth to a boy and twice as many animals put to a needless death if she had a girl then I'm afraid it's a lost cause.
Hahahaha... I get what you're saying. A lot of those rules that God gave the Israelites are really strange to us. But I think part of the reason they seem extra odd to you is that you're looking that them as laws meant to make us sin less or that they're laws that are meant to teach us ethics or morality.
Think about them in the sense of free will. Up until free will was introduced, humans had natural behaviors that were consistent. They didn't have their own will to behave however they chose. Everything from how they hunted to how they chose mates was 'natural'. Once free will was introduced they no longer behaved according to those same rules. So they had to be given very specific rules. Once free will existed in the world humans were no longer controlled by God and His natural world. They behaved according to their own whims. So it makes sense that it would then be necessary to give them such specific rules and what those rules pertained to.
If you allow for it, a lot of those laws given, especially given how we understand things nowadays, show some significant insight. For example, the laws regarding not procreating with family members too close in relation are pretty obvious given our understanding of the harms of inbreeding. But some of the laws, like those that say not to eat animals that chew their own cud, well today we understand that to mean God's giving traits that are most likely common to certain branches of evolved creatures who share these common traits because they are from the same branch. Maybe the purpose has to do with not eating these animals because of the food they eat.
You just have to realize that those laws were very specific to the Israelites of that time, and the purpose of those laws was to realize a particular outcome that God could not make happen in a world of free willed humans without dictating very specific rules. The desired outcome in this case is realizing the birth of Jesus from this particular line.
If you go back and look I did address this food not being eaten. It's not like it goes to waste. The natural world is very efficient in cleaning up dead organic matter. It still gets recycled. It will decompose and be devoured by microbes.
I've been unable to find the particular bits you're talking about where sacrifices were necessary when boys or girls are born. Can you point me in the right direction?
Why would God give laws for us like this one that makes no sense naturally. Meaning we are not behaving naturally when we keep to these laws.
Do you believe that all creatures except us only follow Gods will? Like robots?
It's not so much that all creatures except us behave like robots. It's more that all creatures other than us lack a free will of their own. Think of it in terms of native tribal cultures. They're not compelled to live beyond a simple life. They don't feel compelled to take more land than they need, or to have more than they need as far as personal possessions. They continue to live the same simple life generation after generation. Where humans born of the 'civilizations' were constantly on the move and changing. Constantly exploring new lands, extending borders. The biggest difference is that those of us with free will are fundamentally discontent and constantly looking to change or control our environment, rather than simply living in harmony. One major difference you'll notice between indigenous humans and humans from civilized cultures is that indigenous humans are fundamentally content. They don't fidget like we do. They're not as restless as we are.
Man, I don't know about the laws that have to do with menstruating women. From what I can tell there's no difference between when a woman is menstruating, and bleeding following childbirth, according to Jewish tradition. The 'Niddah', a menstruating woman, in Jewish tradition has very specific rules. Why they would differ between having a boy and a girl I'm not sure, but I don't doubt there's good reason. Possibly related to hormone levels?
But whether or not they make sense naturally I would think is up for debate. For instance, in my view, Aborigines and tribal cultures in Africa do not have free will in the same way that those who came from the 'civilized' cultures born of Mesopotamia do, unless cross-breeding happened somewhere along the way. Yet, it seems they too have specific rules as far as menstruating women, which may indicate that before free will there were 'natural' practices humans followed that then had to be dictated through laws following free will .... " Many peoples, from the Australian Aborigines to the South African Bushmen, have put restrictions on menstruating women." - http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_3.html
That's something I'll have to investigate further. I do not doubt there's good reasoning, which probably means there's wisdom to be gained. I'll let you know what I find out.
Whoa. Back up. You think aborigines need to breed with a 'civilized' race in order to have free will? Do you know what racism is?
Also speciesism. Animal behavior is fundamentally the same as human behavior. If they have no free will, neither do we. Or at the very least free will is of basically no importance when it comes to behavior, emotion, personality or relationships.
There's been a lot of racism in evolution theories.
Oh, come on now. You can't tell me you don't see a difference between the native Americans and the Europeans who later showed up and pushed them off of their land. Both the same species. Yet one group took land from the other the world over. I think it' something like 95% of today's population descends from the Mediterranean cultures.
There have been two distinct waves of humans over our history. The first being when humans first started to migrate out of Africa and managed to totally populate the world by 20,000 BC. Then, after that, there's another wave. These were the civilization building humans. They started in Greece and Rome and spread from there. Each place they went they pushed the indigenous humans out of the way.
The Aborigines actually come from an even earlier migration out of Africa that predates both of those by tens of thousands of years. They're the furthest from the rest of the world's population genetically.
There are distinct behavioral differences between humans of native cultures and those of the European cultures. Those civilizations that came later, those humans were much more aggressive and had a much different view towards possessions than the others. Like land for example. To humans in native cultures the very idea of land ownership is completely foreign to them. In their eyes the land belongs to all living things just as the air we breathe and the wind. Clearly that's not the case with the "civilized" cultures.
In fact, humans from native cultures have very different views towards possessions in general and have a notably less individual sense than most humans. They're very much tribe minded. What belongs to them belongs to the tribe. Aborigines, for example, often exchange the individual names they go by with others in the tribe. When attempts were made in the past to help Aborigines adjust to modern society, homes were built for them and filled with possessions. When they went back to check on them they found that they were all living in each other's houses and they all shared possessions as equal.
So, yes, based on evidence and based on the story Genesis tells I believe the difference between the two groups is free will. And I'm not the only one who thinks that. There's good reason to think the emergence of the modern human ego, a stronger sense of "I", happened between these two groups.
This isn't racism. I'm not saying indigenous cultures are in any way less than the others. I'm just pointing out a distinct difference in behavior. Differences that are clues to how humanity became what they are over the centuries.
Much of that is wrong. You may want to do some research on the genetic makeup of the first peoples of the America's and the migration out of Africa.
And yes it most certainly does sound like racism. I understand it's not your intention, but the intent isn't relevant to racism.
I have done the research. Maybe you could tell me specifically what you think is wrong about what I said. These behavioral differences are heavily documented. Like this ....
"The author Edward T. Hall recalls how, when he worked on Indian reservations in the 1930's, the Indians seemed to possess an amazing quality of patience. In contrast to the Europeans, who fidgeted impatiently and become irritable, the Indians he saw waiting at trading posts and hospitals never showed any sign of irritation whatsoever, even if they had to wait for hours. As he writes:
An Indian might come into the agency in the morning and still be sitting patiently outside the superintendent's office in the afternoon. Nothing in his bearing or demeanor would change in the intervening hours... We whites squirmed, got up, sat down, went outside and looked toward the fields where our friends were working, yawned and stretched our legs... The Indians simply sat there, occasionally passing a word to one another."
It's genetic information that tells us about the multiple migrations. The entirety of written history tells the same basic story over and over, showing how these 'civilized' cultures took over and drove out the indigenous population.
In fact, many mythologies around the world site a difference in human behavior ....
"..it's likely that this first type of Fall myth comes directly from the original Saharasian peoples. The second type of myth, on the other hand, appears to derive from the old Neolithic peoples who were conquered and enslaved by them. This doesn't refer to environmental factors, but sees the Fall mainly in terms of degeneration of the character and behavior of human beings, a long, slow process which unfolds through different historical epochs."
"It's significant that the Bible tells us that the Fall occurred as a result of Eve eating from the tree of knwoledge. This suggests that the Fall was connected to gaining a new intellectual power of awareness. We're told that now Adam and Eve were "given understanding" and, even more significantly, that now they "realised that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and covered themselves." This suggests that the Fall was linked to the development of a new self-awareness within human beings, which gave them a new ability to observe and judge themselves."
The ancient Indian epic of Mahabharata says that the "holy men of old' were "self-subdued and free from envy," suggesting a lack of self-awareness and self-assertion.
"While according to the Chinese myth of the Age of Perfect Virtue, when human beings fell out of the Tao they developed a new kind of individuality and self-sufficiency. They started to live by their own will rather than the will of nature."
These migrations, and behavioral changes amongst humans, are heavily documented in
"The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era" by Steve Taylor
as well as in
"Sahasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World" by James DeMeo
I've read through these, but I'm not seeing any contradiction. The majority of these write-ups are talking about that first migration out of Africa where humans first populated the planet. The first one mentions the second wave I'm talking about, vaguely, here ....
"The story doesn’t end there, of course. The rise of agriculture around 10,000 years ago—and the population explosion it created—has left a dramatic impact on the human gene pool. The rise of empires, the astounding oceangoing voyages of the Polynesians, even the extraordinary increase in global migration over the past 500 years could all leave traces in our DNA"
The entirety of our written history is this second phase. Much like American history, the same thing happened over much of the world. The humans from those first civilizations spread throughout the world. Just look at today's population and how little of it is indigenous cultures. That's because they've been pushed near the brink of extinction by the humans born of those civilization cultures. America, Europe, Asia, it's the same story all across the globe.
For one thing the first Americans were not from the first to come out of Africa, those people were from Asia. The place that has the most genetic diversity is by far Africa. However Neanderthals had been out of Africa for much longer, they can be considered the first wave. All people outside Africa have Neanderthal genes. But what you are speaking of is largely cultural and not genetic.
I'm speaking specifically about homo sapiens, so I'm not including neanderthal. The majority of the first Americans did come from Asia, crossing the Barring land bridge when water levels were low enough. They passed through Asia from Aftrica, but were still part of that first wave. They just went through Asia to get to the Americas.
What I'm speaking of is two distinct waves that largely defined what the modern population is now. I'm tracing a distinct change in human behavior that can be seen. Though all humans are nearly identical genetically, this shift in behavior alludes to a change in the mind. A change that made them much more aggressive and led them to totally repopulating the planet and nearly pushing indigenous cultures out of existence. These people notably had a much stronger sense of "I", as the various mythological stories noted. This is the change the stories of the old testament are told around. When you're reading about these weird rules the Israelites were given, it's because they were no longer behaving like humans had for tens of thousands of years. They were determining their own behaviors outside of pure instinct. That's why the rules had to be given. Much of what they were told mirrors what indigenous cultures did 'naturally'.
It's about putting the OT in the right context to better understand.
No they were not part of the first wave at all. The Neanderthals were of course the first wave, but later the first wave of homo sapiens came down to Australia. That's why I pointed you to those links.
"The First Australians
Discoveries at two ancient sites—artifacts from Malakunanja and fossils from Lake Mungo—indicated that modern humans followed a coastal route along southern Asia and reached Australia nearly 50,000 years ago. Their descendants, Australian Aborigines, remained genetically isolated on that island continent until recently.
Paleoanthropologists long thought that the peopling of Europe followed a route from North Africa through the Levant. But genetic data show that the DNA of today's western Eurasians resembles that of people in India. It's possible that an inland migration from Asia seeded Europe between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago.
Around 40,000 years ago, humans pushed into Central Asia and arrived on the grassy steppes north of the Himalaya. At the same time, they traveled through Southeast Asia and China, eventually reaching Japan and Siberia. Genetic clues indicate that humans in northern Asia eventually migrated to the Americas.
Into the New World
Exactly when the first people arrived in the Americas is still hotly debated. Genetic evidence suggests it was between 20,000 and 15,000 years ago, when sea levels were low and land connected Siberia to Alaska. Ice sheets would have covered the interior of North America, forcing the new arrivals to travel down the west coast."