westvirginia Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 And you know this how, exactly? The ten commandments don't seem to build on one-another, IMO. When one says don't lie and another says don't murder, I kinda figure those are moral equivalents according to God. Absent evidence to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Any Christian who prays to God and continuously sins should be labeled as such. All sin is the same to God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Any Christian who prays to God and continuously sins should be labeled as such. All sin is the same to God. But all do. Whether we think we do or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 So, if a gay couple felt bad about themselves and continually tried to live apart but, "through weakness" kept finding themselves back together? Are they cool with god? Depends. Is the couple a holy man and an alter boy? If so, yeah... the church is generally supportive and protective of the relationship. Definitely doesn't have a "no tolerance" policy like other forms of homosexuality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 Any Christian who prays to God and continuously sins should be labeled as such. All sin is the same to God. When you weigh in on the "same side" of an argument as me, I think I understand how Azz, Nick, and others feel when moneymakers gets their back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The ten commandments don't seem to build on one-another, IMO. When one says don't lie and another says don't murder, I kinda figure those are moral equivalents according to God. Absent evidence to the contrary. Hmmm. I hadn't really considered that at all. Kinda calls into question God's judgment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Hmmm. I hadn't really considered that at all. Kinda calls into question God's judgment. Or yours. But you are a socialist, so we knew your judgment was bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Or yours. But you are a socialist, so we knew your judgment was bad... And you're an Appalachian cannibal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 And you're an Appalachian cannibal. You sure got a purty mouth, boy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The ten commandments don't seem to build on one-another, IMO. When one says don't lie and another says don't murder, I kinda figure those are moral equivalents according to God. Absent evidence to the contrary. Common Sense, perhaps. I highly doubt that the intent was to have those two be equivalent and that there are no level of degrees. Otherwise, telling your wife she doesn't look fat would be the same as going on a shooting spree and killing a hundred people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 i think of it as we are all sinners, separated from god. no matter how large or small the sin, it is part of the human condition. christ came as our salvation from our sin and from our separation and offers to us the way back to the father. by accepting him and putting your faith in him, you are saved. he died on the cross to show us that death is not the end and that there is more to this life. on the cross, he forgave a criminal of his sins and accepted him into heaven on his deathbed. so i believe the debate on the severity of different sins to be irrelevant in terms of christianity. we are all in the same boat, all fallen, all in need of salvation. this is a different discussion vs. one of the laws of men and our legal system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 along the same lines--born & raised Catholic, somewhat of a Chreaster---but then my sis died of suicide, I was worried she would go to hell but couldn't fathom that since she was a wonderful person in life, never met a stranger, and always made everyone around her happy (except herself, of course)...I asked every person I could think of who's studied the bible in great detail, they say the only unforgivable sin was "blaspheming the holy spirit." I take it to mean, thinking God works for the devil, denying his existence. Obesity-many say it's a disease, depression, a disease...some say homosexuality is a mental defect, or you're just born that way and you can't help it and God knows this and won't judge you for it. http://net-burst.net/guilty/sin.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 ...some say homosexuality is a mental defect, or you're just born that way and you can't help it and God knows this and won't judge you for it. I always find this view interesting, if you're just "born that way". Would those that don't believe in God and those that say homosexuals are just born that way then agree that it's a genetic defect that needs to be corrected, just like any other disease? THIS IS NOT A SWIPE - it's a legitimate question. If there is no God, if we are just an accident here, then the only reason for sex is the propagation of the species, and that would mean that if being homo is not a choice, then it's a genetic defect that should be fixed, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) I always find this view interesting, if you're just "born that way". Would those that don't believe in God and those that say homosexuals are just born that way then agree that it's a genetic defect that needs to be corrected, just like any other disease? THIS IS NOT A SWIPE - it's a legitimate question. If there is no God, if we are just an accident here, then the only reason for sex is the propagation of the species, and that would mean that if being homo is not a choice, then it's a genetic defect that should be fixed, right? One could argue that the fundamental purpose of any species is to procreate. That is a completely sound argument. In that respect, one could argue that being hard wired in a manner that one is pre-disposed not to procreate is a deviation from the initial program. That could be seen as a defect, I suppose, at least in relation to the fundamental purpose of species. Then again, if one believes in evolution, the entire theory is based upon random deviations from the normal pattern. Some better than others. In terms of homosexuality, that deviation would be certainly not one destined to be repeated, provided, of course assuming it's a dominant/recessive gene deal. Thus, it would not be a trait that would be very inclined to be spread because homosexuals are less inclined to bear children than heterosexuals. Mind you, this likely oversimplifies things but I'm just playing along. In that respect, in terms of the purpose of species, it sort of "corrects" itself. Mind you, our society has certainly evolved to a point where lack of procreation is among the least of our worries. So, if this is the way that homosexuals "fail" their species, it hardly seems like something that needs "correcting" by anyone. Frankly, with the population rising as quickly as it is, it could be better for the species right now that less people spit out babies. Edited February 16, 2009 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I'm consulting my phd BIL-theologian about the subject as we speak--I'll let you know what his take is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Drug Abuse = Food Abuse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) Trust me, I have no illusions that I'm not as big a hypocrite as the next guy. And, for the record, I wasn't the one who made the initial remark about Christians being more so than the next. Well, actually, I don't even have a dog in BeeR's fight because I'm agnositc and not an athiest anyway. Science can explain why a strawberry has sugar, but not why it tastes so f'ing good. I was just curious about his reasons. 2 words can explain that.......corn syrup! Edited February 17, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 for one thing, I don't think gluttony is just being overweight per se. I think of it more as an attitude toward food and drink. a passion, almost a lust. if that sort of thing has control over you, then yeah, it's as bad from a sin standpoint as being consumed with sexual desire, or whatever. I find the "christian" gay-bashing to be deeply hypocritical and fundamentally un-christian on lots of levels. but, I dunno, it never occurred to me to add the fact that some of these christians are chubby to the list. seems like a pretty "thin" argument to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) for one thing, I don't think gluttony is just being overweight per se. I think of it more as an attitude toward food and drink. a passion, almost a lust. if that sort of thing has control over you, then yeah, it's as bad from a sin standpoint as being consumed with sexual desire, or whatever. I find the "christian" gay-bashing to be deeply hypocritical and fundamentally un-christian on lots of levels. but, I dunno, it never occurred to me to add the fact that some of these christians are chubby to the list. seems like a pretty "thin" argument to me. As for the definition of gluttony, you're completely correct and not the first person to bring that up in this thread. As I said before, I simply chose fat to put an image to the notion and it made for a better title. However, don't confuse the issue by using words like "overweight" and "chubby", which could be used to describe many who are simply not in peak physical shape, including pretty much anyone over 40 who doesn't work out a ton. Let's just say we're talking about actual obesity, which a lot of Americans (and likely Christians) are. As far as the definitions I found while researching the seven deadly sins, a lack of self control was mentioned among the reasons for why gluttony is included. Frankly, that makes sense to me and, in many ways I feel, perhaps due to my profession, that dispassionately eating far more food than you should because you lack control or discipline to stop is worse than approaching the gifts of earth (or god, if you will) with gusto and passion. When giving lectures about food, I often discuss my duty to the animal that is being consumed to at least make something tasty out of them. A small consolation, to be sure, but none the less that sort of applies here. Gotta think there's a very, very blurry line between the passion you speak of that's the root of gluttony and simply cherishing and appreciating the food before you. And further, as I mentioned earlier, it is not my intent to crack on any Christian who eats too much. I do understand the notion that they're no more bound to be perfect than anyone else. Well, that is, until they start telling others they ways that they must be perfect and legislate against actions where there is no evidence of victim and involve consenting adults. Then, this just goes back to what may have been the crux of my point, that it seems rather weak to identify one sin that just happens to be one that nearly everyone in your congregation has no temptation to as something to make a huge deal about and essentially ignore one that many give in to. Seems a bit backwards and reeks of the very things that Americans have been fighting against for centuries. On another note, I've been meaning to fire up another tread about sin based laws questioning which actually made sense and which didn't. Fundamentally. Edited February 17, 2009 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 So, if a fat Christian says, "You shouldn't look at porn, its a sin and makes God sad" to an athiest. And the athiest says, "You obsess over food; you are a glutton and if there is some sort of god, you make him/her sad" ... ...if the Christian says anything other than "you know, you're right ... but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong as it regards your situation, you know" ... he's being disenginuous ... In other words, its ok for a person (whether Christian or not) to call a spade a spade ... assuming that they are ok if someone else calls them on the carpet for something, too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 So, if a fat Christian says, "You shouldn't look at porn, its a sin and makes God sad" to an athiest. And the athiest says, "You obsess over food; you are a glutton and if there is some sort of god, you make him/her sad" ... ...if the Christian says anything other than "you know, you're right ... but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong as it regards your situation, you know" ... he's being disenginuous ... In other words, its ok for a person (whether Christian or not) to call a spade a spade ... assuming that they are ok if someone else calls them on the carpet for something, too... So this one time i got a bit buzzed, and ended up on a porn site featuring fat chicks. I'm totally screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 just pasting: Anyway, yes, I think you make a good point. On the one hand, saying that a person is just "born that way" can legitimize homosexuality as a natural state (rather than a "preference" or set of behaviors) that ought to be beyond any sort of moral objection. On the other hand, it might also suggest that homosexuality is simply a genetic defect that ought to be corrected. There has been a lot of discussion and disagreement among those who tend to promote homosexual causes about just how to approach this. I think the origins of homosexuality are probably more complicated than just this. On the other issue: I do not believe that suicide is an unforgivable sin. This is rooted in my belief that one receives God's salvation purely by faith in the work that Christ has already done on the cross -- "not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9) If I can't do anything to earn the salvation that only Jesus could earn, then I can't do anything to lose it, either. I'm simply called to receive it by faith (which, by the way, I heard Tamra say that she had done ). There's certainly disagreement on this issue in the Christian world, but if I'm going to err, I'll stand on the side of God's grace being sufficient to seal a person in their salvation until they are ultimately perfected in eternity, no matter what mistakes, sins, or tragedies they commit or fall into. "Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ." The passage about blaspheming the Holy Spirit defies a simple interpretation. It may be that Jesus was referring only specifically to the particular people he was addressing, who were indeed looking Jesus Christ in the face and attributing his power to the devil. In that interpretation, it would have been a specific judgment by Christ on them and them alone. If it is more general, I think it probably would refer to a person who heard a convincing witness of the gospel, was convicted by God of his/her need for salvation, and still rejected it, attributing Christ's work of salvation to Satan, or nonsense, or whatever. Other than this exception, I don't believe in an unforgivable sin. I certainly don't believe Tamra committed one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 So, if a fat Christian says, "You shouldn't look at porn, its a sin and makes God sad" to an athiest. And the athiest says, "You obsess over food; you are a glutton and if there is some sort of god, you make him/her sad" ... ...if the Christian says anything other than "you know, you're right ... but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong as it regards your situation, you know" ... he's being disenginuous ... In other words, its ok for a person (whether Christian or not) to call a spade a spade ... assuming that they are ok if someone else calls them on the carpet for something, too... You're leaving something very important. The athiest not only reminds the Christian about glass houses but also that if his god says not to look at porn, then it sounds like the Christian should not be looking at porn, but seeing as far as the athiest is concerned, there is no god, that he's not exactly sure how that applies to him. So it comes back to where the line should be drawn in terms of to what degree Christians should legislate their beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.