One Christian preacher's message to married couples...

[vniow]

Have hotter sex.

SAN DIEGO — About 100 evangelical Christian couples stand in the convention hall of a Four Points Sheraton, bow their heads and thank God for their lives and the new day. Then they sing the old-timey hymn “There’s Not a Friend Like the Lowly Jesus.”

I have come here expecting exactly this scene. The occasion is a seminar called “Love, Sex and Marriage,” being given by Joe Beam, a Southern preacher out of the old school, a self-described “book-chapter-and-verse guy,” who runs an outfit based in Franklin, Tenn., called Family Dynamics. So I’m anticipating condemnation of American culture — especially America’s sexual culture — that has made conservative Christians feel besieged.

But then Beam, a portly, silver-haired basso profundo dressed in khaki slacks, a sweater vest and brown tasseled loafers that make him look like a retired country-club golf pro, walks to the front of the room and proceeds to tell the men in the audience how to make their semen taste better.

Sweet stuff works, he says, which provides a built-in excuse because "then you can say, 'I'm eating this cake for you, baby!'"

Welcome to the world of hot Christian love.

Caught this linked from Wired. Even though he's still a literalist evangelical preacher which means he's not advocating or allowing unmarried sex or homosexuality its certainly a start.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13834042/

[mactastic]

Yeah, I caught this the other day. LATimes I think. Interesting, coming from such a conservative religious type.

But hey, if they're finally coming around to enviromentalism, animal rights, and hot sex, who knows what else they might accomplish...

[skunk]

Yeah, I caught this the other day. LATimes I think. Interesting, coming from such a conservative religious type.

But hey, if they're finally coming around to enviromentalism, animal rights, and hot sex, who knows what else they might accomplish...Will they ask the animals first?

[mactastic]

Will they ask the animals first?
I've been saving this (http://www.lompocrecord.com/articles/2006/09/07/news/news05.txt) just for you. :p

[XNine]

So we can have anal sex then right? Or are they thinking "hotter" meaning "any other position than missionary?"

[mactastic]

So we can have anal sex then right? Or are they thinking "hotter" meaning "any other position than missionary?"
Did you read the article? :confused:

If you did, your questions would be answered...

[aquajet]

its certainly a start.

If I'm not mistaken, this really just reinforces what the Bible has always told Christians: get married, have sex and be fruitful. It's still all based upon Conservative Christian Values. The only difference is now they can talk about how to make the experience better without blushing.

Call me a cynic, but I don't think this is a start to anything. The Bible will always condemn homosexual sex, and a significant cross-section of Christians will always use this to hide behind their bigotry.

[beatsme]

Have hotter sex.



Caught this linked from Wired. Even though he's still a literalist evangelical preacher which means he's not advocating or allowing unmarried sex or homosexuality its certainly a start.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13834042/

orgasms, King Solomon, and the Pointer Sisters...hehehe you gotta love this guy :D

[Macaddicttt]

As a fairly staunch Catholic, I think these people are absolutely ridiculous in what they're saying. I think they're going a little overboard and are picking out what's okay or not pretty arbitrarily.

There are only two positions (opinions, not sexual...) talked about in the article: "I grew up being taught sex was bad," and, "Sex is wonderful, let's have anal and oral sex!"

I'm not going to give my views on sex, because that's not what the article's about, but I will give my opinion about the people in the article. Like I said, it all seems pretty arbitrary. Why is anal and oral sex allowed? It's never mentioned in the Bible, but doesn't seem to go along with the main thread of thought in the Bible that sex is mainly for procreation. Also, they continue to state that homosexual sex is not okay. Doesn't allowing anal and oral sex remove most of the differences between straight and homosexual sex?

Why is sex during menstruation not allowed? It's mentioned in the Old Testament as unclean, but so where tons of other things. It doesn't make sense that Christians would maintain this one element of being kosher.

This preacher is a bunch of hooey. He completely misunderstands Christianity's view of sex and invents a way to do all the sexual things he always wanted to do, but feel good about not breaking any explicit rules against such found in the Bible.

[LethalWolfe]

As a fairly staunch Catholic, I think these people are absolutely ridiculous in what they're saying. I think they're going a little overboard and are picking out what's okay or not pretty arbitrarily.
.
.
.
This preacher is a bunch of hooey. He completely misunderstands Christianity's view of sex and invents a way to do all the sexual things he always wanted to do, but feel good about not breaking any explicit rules against such found in the Bible.


So you are saying they are pretty much the same as every other religious person, you just disagree w/what they've chosen to cherry pick?


Lethal

[XNine]

Did you read the article? :confused:

If you did, your questions would be answered...

I was at work when I read this thread. certain places I can go, certain places I cannot...

edit: This guy just became my #1 Christian friend. :b

[CorvusCamenarum]

What the Bible says about sex in a nutshell:

1. Don't do it with anyone not your spouse.

What the bible implies about sex in a nutshell:

1. As long as you're married and Aunt Flo isn't in town, anything goes upon which the two of you can agree. If using cantaloupes and a trapeze harness gets the job done, then go for it.

It's been my experience that the (American) Protestant view of sex is that it has to be in the missionary position, in bed, under the covers, with the lights off, can't last longer then five minutes, and no one is allowed to enjoy it. Then again, I know some pretty freaky Southern Baptist girls.

[KingYaba]

It's been my experience that the (American) Protestant view of sex is that it has to be in the missionary position, in bed, under the covers, with the lights off, can't last longer then five minutes, and no one is allowed to enjoy it.
I thought that was the Puritan view? :confused:

[Macaddicttt]

So you are saying they are pretty much the same as every other religious person, you just disagree w/what they've chosen to cherry pick?


Lethal

I sort of said that, although you imply that all religions cherry pick. I'm not going to get into a debate about that, but what I found ridiculous about this preacher is he has a very weak basis for his beliefs.

To contrast this preacher with my faith, Catholicism: You might claim that the Catholic Church cherry picks what to believe (although I'd disagree), but at least they have reasons for all that they teach. If you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they back up all of their teachings with tradition, scripture, logic, and the writings of the Church Fathers. If nothing else, the Catholic Church has their assertion that they are the Church founded by Christ and are guided by God. You need not believe this to be true, but the Church will offer reasons as to why it's possible.

What this guy did is completely different. He opened the Bible, saw what he wanted, and preached it. There's no basis in the Bible or anywhere in the Christian faith for what he preaches.

[Macaddicttt]

It's been my experience that the (American) Protestant view of sex is that it has to be in the missionary position, in bed, under the covers, with the lights off, can't last longer then five minutes, and no one is allowed to enjoy it. Then again, I know some pretty freaky Southern Baptist girls.

And I think this guy is an overreaction to such thoughts. He doesn't seem to realize that there's a middle ground between the two, enjoying sex, but refraining from such things that lead to extra-vaginal ejaculation.

EDIT: This is a very simplified view of the Christian viewpoint of sex, so keep than in mind if/when you respond to this post.

EDIT 2: Where do all these Christians (Protestants) get the idea that sex during menstruation is wrong? It says it in the Old Testament, but it also says a million other things about menstruation that Protestants don't follow.

[skunk]

He doesn't seem to realize that there's a middle ground between the two, enjoying sex, but refraining from such things that lead to extra-vaginal ejaculation.Should I refrain from dreaming? :)

[Macaddicttt]

Should I refrain from dreaming? :)

Like I said, it was a very simplistic view of the whole thing. I wasn't giving all the particulars. But I meant, of course, conscious extra-vaginal ejaculation. And I'm sure there are a million different exceptions you could come up with to my one little line. It's not an all-encompassing statement.

[yg17]

Well, at least he's advocating sex with your spouse rather than sex with altar boys.

[vniow]

And I think this guy is an overreaction to such thoughts.

Overreactions are pretty damned fun then.

[Macaddicttt]

Overreactions are pretty damned fun then.

Yes, more fun, but is it more right? I, personally, would choose right over fun any day.

But to each his own. :)

[vniow]

But to each his own. :)

I suppose. From my point of view sex is one of the most natural and beautiful things that a human can ever do, wether its alone, with a partner or with more than that. I certainly didn't expect anybody on the religious right to come out and approve like S/M or anything like that but it was certainly refreshing that his attitude wasn't sex is evil and only to be used for procreation which true to the Bible or not is the message that is spouted out by the majority of the religious conservatives in power here. His message was the complete opposite and really spun a positive angle on human sexuality.

You can argue wether you believe its "right" or not however you describe that but I don't think anyone can seriously argue that having better sex is a bad thing.

[Mal]

I don't get what's so unusual about this? Sure, some Puritanical Christian sects condemn the non-procreative types of sex, but the essential Christian view is that sex is for a husband and wife, and that beyond that it's all fair game. As long as you're only having sex with the person you married (and yes, I do believe that it's limited to heterosexual relationships, but that's not the focus of the thread so I won't get into it here), then God is pleased with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that everything good comes from God, so therefore pleasurable sex falls into that category, and as long as you stick to his basic guidelines there's no reason to think that the more unusual types of sex are off-limits.

I know my wife and I will be experimenting, once we're married. We've already had a few conversations about the fact that we both will have some interesting things we'd like to try (though we didn't go into detail, no need to increase the temptation to try it out now). Nothing wrong with that, and I think that's the message this preacher's trying to get out. Too many people think that "missionary style" is the only style Christianity allows, when it's really just the frigid holier-than-thou Pharisaical "Christians" that would say that in public.

jW

[mdntcallr]

hey hopefully this helps people get a little less uptight about sex.

but i am against biggotry. yes i believe marriage is for a man and a woman. but hey, in today's world, why not let them get the same protection and rights from the govt? ie for tax, estate and other purposes.

[KingYaba]

Why not get government out of marriage completely? Would solve this problem real quick. No need to license marriages.

[aquajet]

In fact, I'm pretty sure that everything good comes from God, so therefore pleasurable sex falls into that category, and as long as you stick to his basic guidelines there's no reason to think that the more unusual types of sex are off-limits.

God has a monopoly on things that are good?

And pleasurable sex is that which is "good" in the eyes of God?

:confused:

[Mal]

God has a monopoly on things that are good?

Umm, well, yeah. Everything that is good comes from God, whether you're a Christian or not (remember that God loves everyone, just like Christians are supposed to, so he does good things even for the non-Christians). So I guess you could say he has a monopoly on things that are good. That's pretty much the accepted view of mainstream Christianity, btw.

And pleasurable sex is that which is "good" in the eyes of God?

:confused:

Well, not just pleasurable, it does have to be in the right context (between a husband and wife). Basically correct though. I'm pretty sure that no one could (correctly) tell you that their religion or even sect of religion believes that sex is bad, just sex with the wrong person or in the wrong situation. Sure, there's celibate sects, but even they never advocate that no one ever have sex. Sex is a very good thing, when enjoyed in the proper way (and no, I'm not referring to a position here).

jW

[CorvusCamenarum]

Why not get government out of marriage completely? Would solve this problem real quick. No need to license marriages.

Because the divorce industry is such a cash beast. The government likes being the silent third party in a marriage.

This is America, the land of profit-off-a-broken-system-rather-than-be-intelligent-and-fix-the-problem.

[skunk]

Sex is a very good thing, when enjoyed in the proper wayThere's nothing proper about sex.

[xsedrinam]

Originally Posted by KingYaba
Why not get government out of marriage completely? Would solve this problem real quick. No need to license marriages.
Because the divorce industry is such a cash beast. The government likes being the silent third party in a marriage.

This is America, the land of profit-off-a-broken-system-rather-than-be-intelligent-and-fix-the-problem.
Also, in about 50 U.S. States, it would usher in party time for polygamy (http://www.polygamyinfo.com/law.htm) proponents.

[vniow]

There's nothing proper about sex.

Or rather there is no one proper way to have it.

[skunk]

Or rather there is no one proper way to have it.I prefer the improper ones.

[Macaddicttt]

I suppose. From my point of view sex is one of the most natural and beautiful things that a human can ever do, wether its alone, with a partner or with more than that. I certainly didn't expect anybody on the religious right to come out and approve like S/M or anything like that but it was certainly refreshing that his attitude wasn't sex is evil and only to be used for procreation which true to the Bible or not is the message that is spouted out by the majority of the religious conservatives in power here. His message was the complete opposite and really spun a positive angle on human sexuality.

You can argue wether you believe its "right" or not however you describe that but I don't think anyone can seriously argue that having better sex is a bad thing.

Oh, I agree. Having better sex is definitely a good thing. And it was nice seeing a Christian being vocal about how sex is a very good thing. I just took issue with what he drew as okay and not okay. It just seemed extremely arbitrary and an overreaction to the bad stigma sex has in many Christian circles.

I appreciate this guy's effort. I just think he's a bit misguided in how to go about things. His heart's in the right place, though.

[mactastic]

So is God responsible for all the bad things too? Or only the good things?

[Macaddicttt]

So is God responsible for all the bad things too? Or only the good things?

Whoa, there. This question could be debated forever. I suggest if you're really interested in the subject to read up different opinions about the questions of pain and disease and the like.

The short version of the Christian perspective is that God created everything, but evil is not his doing. So He created it and didn't. It's very complicated. I really suggest you look into it. It's fascinating.

[mactastic]

Whoa, there. This question could be debated forever. I suggest if you're really interested in the subject to read up different opinions about the questions of pain and disease and the like.

The short version of the Christian perspective is that God created everything, but evil is not his doing. So He created it and didn't. It's very complicated. I really suggest you look into it. It's fascinating.
I'm sure it is fascinating. But why no "Whoa, there" when the claim that everything good is created by God is bandied about as fact, yet when I ask about the contra-claim?

Is one claim not as worthy of a "Whoa, there" than the other?

But in essence, what you are saying is that, while God created everything, he's only responsible for the parts that wind up being "good"?

[XNine]

So He created it and didn't. It's very complicated.

That's a cop out if I've ever heard one.

If God is truly good, then there is a concept, an acknowledgement that there is evil. Since God is considered to be all good, and he created EVERYTHING and EVERYONE, then he has created evil, and given the free-will to use either good or evil to everything and everyone he has created that has the ability to choose to do so.

This is where I find the whole religious thing to fall apart. If God has created everything and everyone, and he knows every bit of the future and the past, then he has created a scenario, a chess match between good and evil, where he already knows the outcome. He knows how much suffering and pain will be exacted in this chess game, and therefore, logically, he himself is condoning evil by not stopping it.


But, back on subject, I think sex can be good with someone you LOVE. Because, let's face it, this country doesn't allow gays to marry or acknowledge that they are married. So, since they love each other, TRULY love each other, and they have sex, it can't be considered a good thing simply because they are not married? Bah! Googleymoo @ that.

[skunk]

You're also saying that anyone else's god(s) is/are illusory while yours is not, of course.

[zimv20]

how does one define what's good and bad? without the axiomatic, "because god made it" response, of course.

[XNine]

how does one define what's good and bad? without the axiomatic, "because god made it" response, of course.

Well, it can be done by this REALLY complex method. You see, first you reach in your pocket, look for a coin, and then declare which side is good and which side is evil. Then, using your thumb, you flip the coin into the air, the more revolution the coin makes the better it is for odds... Catch the coin in your hand and without looking, smack it onto the top of the other hand. VIOLA! Decision made.

[fistful]

Well, it can be done by this REALLY complex method. You see, first you reach in your pocket, look for a coin, and then declare which side is good and which side is evil. Then, using your thumb, you flip the coin into the air, the more revolution the coin makes the better it is for odds... Catch the coin in your hand and without looking, smack it onto the top of the other hand. VIOLA! Decision made.

Everything is good, head on one side, tail on the other.

[zimv20]

Well, it can be done by this REALLY complex method. You see, first you reach in your pocket, look for a coin, and then declare which side is good and which side is evil. Then, using your thumb, you flip the coin into the air, the more revolution the coin makes the better it is for odds... Catch the coin in your hand and without looking, smack it onto the top of the other hand. VIOLA! Decision made.
i was with you until we got to the string section.

[aquajet]

Could a relationship between two gay men ever be considered good? A relationship based on love and understanding and commitment and all those other qualities present in a successful marriage between two people in the "proper context"?

Could God Himself be responsible for something so decidedly Good between two people? Or is it nothing more than a complicated, delusional psychosis responsible for the corruption of an otherwise reasonable person's mind by concealing something much more sinister, under the guise of goodness?

[mactastic]

More to the point, we've now been told that "everything good comes from God", but can THINGS really be good or evil?

Is charcoal good when it's used as a heat source to warm a (hetrosexual, of course) family, but then bad when it's mixed with saltpeter and sulpher to form gunpowder, for instance? Can something be both good and bad at the same time?

[Macaddicttt]

That's a cop out if I've ever heard one.

Sure, the one-line version is a cop out. That's why I recommended reading about it if you're truly interested. There's way too much for me to explain on this forum, and others have already explained it better than I could.

To expand a little though, this is the view. God created everything and it was good. Then he created beings to populate that world, be it humans or angels or whatever. But those beings were given free will, another good thing. Now the beings can choose between different paths and different actions are bad, while others are good.

Therefore, God didn't create evil, but he created something that made evil possible. But free will out weighs all that other evil stuff, because what would be the point of the world if there was no capability for choice?

And as for God already knowing everything you're going to do, that's not the same thing as predestination. So if God creates the you, He knows how you'll end up, but He didn't create you in order that you become that. You make yourself what you are. You have free will. So God doesn't create people so that they will do evil, but He creates people, they do evil, and He knows you'll do evil.

(I was going to write, "and He knows you'll do evil before you do" but "before" implies a timeline and God exists independent of any timeline.)

[Mal]

Pretty good answers there, MacAddicttt. It's pretty much the same way I understand it to work.

aquajet, a relationship between two men who have gay tendency's could be good, potentially, but not if they give in to those temptations, resulting in the situation you seem to be describing. Basically, no, a sexual relationship between two gay men is never good. And I think you're misunderstanding my point. Not everything that is pleasurable is always good. I've heard that theft gives you an emotional high that can feel very good, but it's never a good thing. We seem to be working from different definitions of good here.

mactastic, I don't think that gunpowder is necessarily evil, but more to the point, I don't think that objects can be inherently evil or good. Actually, let me put it another way. I think that when God created the world, it was all good. That is, everything was in it's proper place working the way God intended it to work. Once man sinned, all of creation (which man was charged with maintaining) was affected adversely, thus things are capable of resulting in evil. But no, I don't think charcoal, no matter what it's use, can be good, or evil, but only it's use by man can be good or evil.

Also, I don't think that using charcoal to warm a heterosexual family or to warm a homosexual couple, or to warm a group of prostitutes or thieves or any other group necessarily makes it's use good or bad either. As I've already said, God loves all equally, and just because He will punish us for doing evil, that doesn't mean He wants us to suffer all the time. After all, He still allows us to go on breathing, doesn't He? ;) That's a bit of a straw man argument, though I understand it's one a lot of people want answers to.

jW

[skunk]

Therefore, God didn't create evil, but he created something that made evil possible. But free will out weighs all that other evil stuff, because what would be the point of the world if there was no capability for choice?The fallacy of your argument rests in its assertion that there has to be a point. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity!

[zap2]

S
. But those beings were given free will,


So God takes credit for me helping someone to carry there books(by my free will), but if I take one of their books and hit them with it, its my fault(because it was my free will)?

Either god gets credit for all of my actions, because he gave me free will, or none of it because its free will. I'm not sure how you can stand half and half on that..

** Also the stuff about god and him giving me free will, I was for the point of the topic, agreeing their is this one god, how ever that doesn't mean its my stand on it, I simple assumed that their "god" was real for the point of the debate.

[XNine]

So, lemme get this straight... God created man in his own image (not woman). God loves us (meaning men). We're (meaning men) supposed to love God. So, wouldn't that make us gay for God? Or God gay for us?

But then, LOVE is something that is intangible, right? It's something that is not only emotionally, but hypothetically speaking- spiritually driven, correct? God is full of LOVE, so LOVE is GOOD, right? So how can LOVE be EVIL? How can a man and a woman loving each other be good, but two men (or two women) loving each other be evil? If love is supposed to be GOOD, and not evil, then how can a gay/lesbian relationship based on LOVE be evil?

monkey-nipple?

[Macaddicttt]

So God takes credit for me helping someone to carry there books(by my free will), but if I take one of their books and hit them with it, its my fault(because it was my free will)?

Either god gets credit for all of my actions, because he gave me free will, or none of it because its free will. I'm not sure how you can stand half and half on that..

** Also the stuff about god and him giving me free will, I was for the point of the topic, agreeing their is this one god, how ever that doesn't mean its my stand on it, I simple assumed that their "god" was real for the point of the debate.

No, I don't think you have this quite right. God does not get "credit" for anything good you do. If anything, you get "credit" for what you do (not that good and evil really works on the credit system). God gets credit for creating things like love.

So it's a good deed when you love your neighbor, and that's something good you do, but God is the one who created love in the first place. So "helping someone carry their books" is not something that God created. You did that, and good for you. But God created kindness, and one can be thankful that kindness was created in such a wonderful way that it helps everyone have happier lives when you use it.

[Macaddicttt]

So, lemme get this straight... God created man in his own image (not woman). God loves us (meaning men). We're (meaning men) supposed to love God. So, wouldn't that make us gay for God? Or God gay for us?

But then, LOVE is something that is intangible, right? It's something that is not only emotionally, but hypothetically speaking- spiritually driven, correct? God is full of LOVE, so LOVE is GOOD, right? So how can LOVE be EVIL? How can a man and a woman loving each other be good, but two men (or two women) loving each other be evil? If love is supposed to be GOOD, and not evil, then how can a gay/lesbian relationship based on LOVE be evil?

monkey-nipple?

I'm pretty sure you're just kidding around, but anyway...

You're confusing eros with agape. Completely different. You're also supposed to love your neighbors, but that doesn't make you a polygamist.

[LethalWolfe]

No, I don't think you have this quite right. God does not get "credit" for anything good you do. If anything, you get "credit" for what you do (not that good and evil really works on the credit system). God gets credit for creating things like love.

So it's a good deed when you love your neighbor, and that's something good you do, but God is the one who created love in the first place. So "helping someone carry their books" is not something that God created. You did that, and good for you. But God created kindness, and one can be thankful that kindness was created in such a wonderful way that it helps everyone have happier lives when you use it.

So is the flip side of the coin that God also created hatred and malice?


Lethal

[XNine]

I'm pretty sure you're just kidding around, but anyway...

Not at all. I'm being serious. How is the ultimate display of love demonized when it's two people of the same sex involved and then glorified when it's man and woman? LOVE IS LOVE.

[Macaddicttt]

Not at all. I'm being serious. How is the ultimate display of love demonized when it's two people of the same sex involved and then glorified when it's man and woman? LOVE IS LOVE.

Well, then you're reading the Christian view of love completely wrong. In the Greek New Testament, there is both agape and eros. English, however, only has one word: love. The English translation is what's throwing you off.

When you love God, that's agape. When you love you're parents, that's agape. When you love you neighbor, that's agape. When you love your spouse, that's agape, but also eros. And the eros kind of love is the sexual kind of love that should be reserved for just one person. Sex is the epitome of eros love, not agape love. You don't tell your parents you really love them by having sex with them. It's a different kind of love. The epitome of agape is treating others how you would want to be treated.

So agape between homosexuals is perfectly fine. Actually, it's the goal to have agape between all people everywhere. Eros, though, is not okay between homosexuals (according to the Christian view).

[Macaddicttt]

So is the flip side of the coin that God also created hatred and malice?


Lethal

No, man created it when he first hated.

[leekohler]

So agape between homosexuals is perfectly fine. Actually, it's the goal to have agape between all people everywhere. Eros, though, is not okay between homosexuals (according to the Christian view).

And that is where we differ. And that is a shame. Love is love. The fact that some people are denied this kind of love is ridiculous in my view. We are barely 10% of the population, maybe less. How in the world is society hurt by this? Homosexuals, by our very nature, are not designed to conform to that view. Indeed, I feel we exist to challenge it.

[KingYaba]

Homosexuality is not a sin...

[aquajet]

No, man created it when he first hated.

How could man have created it when you've already told us that God created everything? Presumably, if God created everything, including free will, then He also formulated an infinite number of possible outcomes from which to choose, good and bad.

[ZoomZoomZoom]

How could man have created it when you've already told us that God created everything? Presumably, if God created everything, including free will, then He also formulated an infinite number of possible outcomes from which to choose, good and bad.

I don't think there is free will.

Good article by Vincent Cheung at http://www.rmiweb.org/other.htm under the first PDF "The Problem with Evil", I think maybe 2/3rds down if I remember right. Highly recommended read, and he makes some good points, even though I don't agree with all of his thoughts on other articles.

[LethalWolfe]

No, man created it when he first hated.
So man is more powerful than God? Man created something that God did not create and something that God cannot un-create?


Lethal

[devman]

Sex is a very good thing, when enjoyed in the proper way

If it isn't dirty then you're not doing it right... ;)

[solvs]

Where do all these Christians (Protestants) get the idea that sex during menstruation is wrong?
Same place they get the idea that homosexuality is wrong, Leviticus.

Homosexuality is not a sin...
No, according to the Bible (well, Leviticus... and that self hating homo Paul), it's an abomination. Which some believe just means it's kinda icky. Like doing a girl while she's on her period, or eating pork. Unfortunately, they don't get that not everyone believes the same things they do so for some people it's ok to do any of those. You don't have to if you don't believe in it, just as there are some things you may do that I think is gross.

But that's a whole nother thread about people thinking they can call something bad just because they believe it is and not want anyone else to be able do it, even though that isn't how this country is supposed to work.

Or rather there is no one proper way to have it.
Sure there is.

Often. :p

[Mal]

No one's denying homosexuals eros love. You're expected to experience it with a member of the opposite sex though. See, the trick is, unlike those of you who are getting all up in arms about being denied love, we Christians don't believe that homosexuality is either inborn nor unavoidable. You can resist the temptation, and should. Sure, some people have a natural susceptibility to those homosexual tendencies, but they need to resist them and not act on their urges. After all, not everything that you feel a strong desire for is a good thing. :rolleyes:

As for the question of whether God created evil, it's a problem that's been debated for centuries and will be debated to the end of time, but the simple version that I've understood to be the best we can truly understand is that evil, like darkness, is not a thing in itself, but rather the absence of good. Just as darkness is the absence of light, and silence in the absence of sound. After all, God didn't create dark, did He? No, he created light, and it shone in the darkness. The darkness was already there, though you'd never have known it until God created light. Evil is as eternal as God, though it didn't "exist" until he created beings that were capable of either good or evil (first the angels, then humans, unless he created the angels after humans, but we don't know for sure on that one). That is to say, the concept of evil was always around, since it was merely the absence of good, but since God is all good, there was nothing and no one that was evil until He created beings capable of choosing. Thus, He didn't "create" evil, it was a consequence of man rejecting God.

jW

[Macaddicttt]

So man is more powerful than God? Man created something that God did not create and something that God cannot un-create?


Lethal

I will refer back to what Mal wrote about evil being merely the lack of God, but I will also expand upon this question,

No, man is not more powerful than God. Man did not create something that God cannot un-create. God has chosen not to un-create it. He could destroy all evil with a single word, but He would also destroy free will.

The gist of what Mal was saying was, God created everything and it was good. And if you follow God, you will be good. But when you fall away from God, you fall into the darkness, away from the light of God. You don't fall into an evil created by God.

[Macaddicttt]

And that is where we differ. And that is a shame. Love is love. The fact that some people are denied this kind of love is ridiculous in my view. We are barely 10% of the population, maybe less. How in the world is society hurt by this? Homosexuals, by our very nature, are not designed to conform to that view. Indeed, I feel we exist to challenge it.

I agree with you on one thing. Society isn't hurt by homosexual love. And I think it's ridiculous that governments want to regulate it. What the Catholic church teaches is that homosexual acts harms the person who does it. Homosexual acts are using the sexual faculties for reasons other what they were meant. And that damages one's relationship with God.

Homosexual sex should be avoided (according to Catholics) for the same reason something like masturbation or using contraceptives should be avoided. It's using the sexual faculty for something it was not intended. And, like any other sinful urge, it should be avoided.

So, leekohler, I'll never try and convince you that homosexual sex is wrong. It just wouldn't make any sense because it relies on belief in everything else that goes with it, i.e. the Holiness of the Catholic Church, God, Jesus, etc. But I will be able to tell you why I, personally, and the Catholic Church believe it to be wrong.

[XNine]

No one's denying homosexuals eros love. You're expected to experience it with a member of the opposite sex though. See, the trick is, unlike those of you who are getting all up in arms about being denied love, we Christians don't believe that homosexuality is either inborn nor unavoidable. You can resist the temptation, and should. Sure, some people have a natural susceptibility to those homosexual tendencies, but they need to resist them and not act on their urges. After all, not everything that you feel a strong desire for is a good thing. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because every gay 15 year old kid thinks "You know what would be cool, is if I go make out with another guy and get the crap kicked out of me every day at school, shunned by my parents and family, and harrassed on a daily basis. That is SOOOOOOOO tempting." :rolleyes:

C'mon now. It's who they are, not some silly form of rebellion or temptation. I have no desire what so ever to kiss or screw another guy. NONE. So what does that mean? I'm all about women. Some guys have no desire whatsoever to be with a woman. Spiritually or physically. It's the same thing, and that's fine. If two men or two women can experience true love, then the world is a better place for that.

[Macaddicttt]

Yeah, because every gay 15 year old kid thinks "You know what would be cool, is if I go make out with another guy and get the crap kicked out of me every day at school, shunned by my parents and family, and harrassed on a daily basis. That is SOOOOOOOO tempting." :rolleyes:

Where did I imply that? I didn't imply that it's tempting to be a homosexual. I'm saying that if you are a homosexual, it's tempting to act on it. It's way different.

And really, there's no way I'm going to convince you that homosexual sex is wrong, so there's no point to try. It's my personal belief, just like I won't try to convince you God exists, etc. In order for you to even be able to be convinced that homosexual sex is wrong, you'd have to also agree that extra-marital sex, masturbation, and birth control was wrong, too. Frankly, I don't see that happening.

If you're not Catholic, then this thinking doesn't really apply to you. But you still can understand how the Catholic thought works so that in the future you won't attack it as completely illogical (hopefully...).

[skunk]

Where did I imply that? I didn't imply that it's tempting to be a homosexual. I'm saying that if you are a homosexual, it's tempting to act on it. It's way different.So, if you "are" a homosexual (which itself presumes there is such a thing as innate homosexuality) you are doomed to a life of celibacy if you want to do God's will, whereas, if you're heterosexual, you can shag to your heart's content. What business has God to be in your bed?

[Macaddicttt]

So, if you "are" a homosexual (which itself presumes there is such a thing as innate homosexuality) you are doomed to a life of celibacy if you want to do God's will, whereas, if you're heterosexual, you can shag to your heart's content. What business has God to be in your bed?

I think of homosexuality as a burden, just as any desire to sin is a burden. I don't want to compare it to other burdens, though, because I don't want to compare homosexuality to other sins.

And as for what business God has to be in your bed, in the Catholic faith, everything. In a Catholic marriage, it is between you, your spouse, and God. God is an integral part of Eros. God intended for sex to be a certain way, and when sex is used correctly, God is just as much a part of that has He is in any good done throughout the world. It is His will coming to fruition.

Marriage is a big part of Jesus' teachings found in the Gospels. He prohibits divorce in every one (I think, if not, He does in 3 out of 4). Marriage is a union made by God. God makes the man and woman into one flesh and man can do nothing to dissolve that. So marriage and sex have everything to do with God.

[aquajet]

After all, God didn't create dark, did He?

Not according to Isaiah 45:7:

"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things."

You cannot logically say that God created everything, and then pick and choose only things that paint a rosy picture of God. I see that nobody has attempted to address this point in my last post.

I don't think there is free will.

Good article by Vincent Cheung...

Finally! A religious perspective that addresses the issue of free will, and makes sense. I've always thought the notion that God knows the ultimate outcome of our lives and gives us free will is rubbish. Doesn't the former strongly suggest that free will doesn't exist?

Of course, Cheung's writing can only be true if the Bible is indeed infallible. He claims that it is infallible and that he has proven so elsewhere, but doesn't go into any detail. He must have another essay dealing with the issue of infallibility, considering he could be so arrogant on the issue.

Thanks for posting this, Zoom. It's brilliant, but I don't believe a word of it.

[Queso]

If man truly has free will, then he has the ability to have perverted the message of God and corrupted the Bible to suit his own prejudices.

The Bible is cherry picked. Just because it happened centuries ago, doesn't make it any less true. Every Christian on the planet could be working against God and never know it.

[Macaddicttt]

If man truly has free will, then he has the ability to have perverted the message of God and corrupted the Bible to suit his own prejudices.

The Bible is cherry picked. Just because it happened centuries ago, doesn't make it any less true. Every Christian on the planet could be working against God and never know it.

You're absolutely right, and, to bring this back to the original topic, that was the issue I had with this particular preacher. He has no basis for his beliefs except for what he personally saw in the Bible.

This is, in essence, why I'm a Catholic and not some non-denominational Christianity. The Catholic Church did not cherry pick the Bible. They wrote the Bible. Christianity was founded by Christ and existed before the Bible was written. The Catholic Church was that Christianity founded by Christ.

Today, you have every average joe opening the Bible and seeing exactly what he wants to see, with out any basis for believing it except his own personal opinions about a Catholic book. I believe that all Bible-based Christians are perverting the words of Christ and are doing incredibly harm to the Christian faith as a whole.

[Lau]

In a Catholic marriage, it is between you, your spouse, and God.

Isn't that a bit kinky?

[skunk]

The Catholic Church did not cherry pick the Bible. They wrote the Bible. Christianity was founded by Christ and existed before the Bible was written. The Catholic Church was that Christianity founded by Christ.The Catholic Church did not write the Bible, they chose which Jewish writings to include in their much-revised anthology.

[skunk]

Isn't that a bit kinky?God likes to watch.

[vniow]

You can resist the temptation, and should.

No.


:D

[XNine]

Yeah, God has always confused me in bed. I hear his name shouted a lot, and sometimes I'm like "Hey, God, what are you doing on the other side there?" I never get an answer. He's pretty smug.

[bowens]

I know my wife and I will be experimenting, once we're married. We've already had a few conversations about the fact that we both will have some interesting things we'd like to try (though we didn't go into detail, no need to increase the temptation to try it out now).
I'm glad to hear you and your fiance have waited until marriage for sex. My wife and I also waited. You will be very happy with the decision. My best friend is getting married this Saturday and they have waited also. I know it's a hard thing to do, but God will bless you for it.

[Mal]

Thanks, bowens.

All, I think I'll bow out of this, since you insist on mischaracterizing all of our arguments. Of course, I don't think you're all doing it on purpose, I think we're just coming from very different perspectives. Macaddicttt, good luck with the continuation of this debate. I'm just not prepared to counter all these arguments that really aren't reflecting any accepted view of the Scripture my views are based on.

Know that I don't mean any offense with any of this, and I really do appreciate the lack of name-calling and other offensive statements (for the most part) on both sides of this short debate.

jW

[KingYaba]

My best friend is getting married this Saturday and they have waited also. I
Their first experience will not be what they hope.

Sex is like sports, you have to practice, practice, practice in order to become better. :) In no way can anyone simply strap on a uniform and expect to become Michael Jordon on their first try. :) Unless you're superman.

No sex untill marriage is great, no risk of aids, no risk of HIV, no risk of pregancy. Always a good decision, just I have met couples who were very disapointed about how their first sexual experience turned out. ;) So I told 'em it was like sports. :D

[mactastic]

Christianity existed before Christ? Now I really am confused...

[mactastic]

So I told 'em it was like sports. :D
Did you tell 'em it was like a sprint, or like a marathon? :p

[Macaddicttt]

Yeah, God has always confused me in bed. I hear his name shouted a lot, and sometimes I'm like "Hey, God, what are you doing on the other side there?" I never get an answer. He's pretty smug.

You know, if you don't want to talk about this rationally, I'll just stop posting.

[Macaddicttt]

Christianity existed before Christ? Now I really am confused...

No, no. Christianity existed before the Bible.

[Macaddicttt]

The Catholic Church did not write the Bible, they chose which Jewish writings to include in their much-revised anthology.

Well, I didn't mean the Church all got together and wrote it all down. They took writings and put together all the ones that supported what Jesus Himself told them. So the Bible is a work of the Catholic Church. If one were to want a Christian religion based on the writings, they first would have to compile all the writings about Christ themselves, not rely on the Catholic Church's compilation.

[skunk]

Well, I didn't mean the Church all got together and wrote it all down. They took writings and put together all the ones that supported what Jesus Himself told them. So the Bible is a work of the Catholic Church. If one were to want a Christian religion based on the writings, they first would have to compile all the writings about Christ themselves, not rely on the Catholic Church's compilation.I have no idea what you mean here. :confused:

[skunk]

No, no. Christianity existed before the Bible.One would have to assume you are referring to the NT as the Bible, or alternatively that Jesus was a teacher in an older tradition..

[mactastic]

No, no. Christianity existed before the Bible.
Did Catholocism exist before the bible?

[Macaddicttt]

Did Catholocism exist before the bible?

Yes, although I'm pretty sure it wasn't called that.

[mactastic]

Yes, although I'm pretty sure it wasn't called that.
So when was the bible written?

[Macaddicttt]

So when was the bible written?

The Old Testament, the Jewish Bible, was under discussion among Jews from about 200 BC to 100 AD, and since Catholicism sees itself as the fulfillment of Judaism, this was included in the Bible.

The New Testament was compiled during various synods during the 4th century. All the writings were written, obviously, some time between the death of Christ and the 4th century. The earliest reference to these writings is found around 60 AD and the Gospels are thought to be written about 100/150 AD. Then St. Jerome translated the definitive Latin version in about 400 AD.

Now the Catholic Bible is slightly different than the Protestant Bible. The Catholic Old Testament is taken from the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Jewish Bible), but Judaism eventually formed the Jewish Bible without some of the books that were included in the Septuagint. So when Martin Luther was carrying out his reformation, he adopted the current Jewish Bible, leaving out certain books.

[mactastic]

So then how can you claim that Christ founded a religion who's writings had been under discussion for 200 years PRIOR to his ever having been born?

You did say that Catholocism has been around since before the bible, didn't you?

[skunk]

Yes, although I'm pretty sure it wasn't called that.??????? It certainly wasn't called Catholicism. It was called Judaism, which was not catholic at all, being racially exclusive. The direct precursors of Jesus' teachings are scattered throughout the Jewish, Gnostic, Zoroastrian and Buddhist traditions. Add the influence of Hellenistic philosophy and the needs of a collapsing empire, and you have the Catholic Church.

[XNine]

You know, if you don't want to talk about this rationally, I'll just stop posting.

Oh c'mon now, I was just trying to break it up to get a quick laugh.

I'm very serious though, how can one group, who really, looking at history, was NOTHING until St. Paul went on his conversion spree, really determine what is good and what is evil?

I mean, I've heard LOTS of Christians (and yes, I've been around thousands, literally) who say "If Hitler accepted Jesus in his heart as his savior, and asked for forgiveness, then he'd be forgiven and God would allow him in Heaven." Then I hear "Oh, all of those ******s are going to hell!!!!" WTF is that about? I mean, Hitler did like toying with little boys, not to mention commiting genocide. But if two men or women have sex together, it's a hell-binding sin?

The people of your belief boggle my mind, my friend. Especially thsoe who follow the 700 club and Promise Keepers (like my mother and father).

[mactastic]

???????
It might have been using the pseudonym "Paganism" at that point. We'll need a DNA match to be sure.

[Macaddicttt]

So then how can you claim that Christ founded a religion who's writings had been under discussion for 200 years PRIOR to his ever having been born?

You did say that Catholocism has been around since before the bible, didn't you?

Because the Old Testament is Judaism. It's not Christianity. Judaism was the "correct" religion before Christianity. Therefore, it's ridiculous for Christians to look at Leviticus and take laws and rules from it. The Old Testament is the history and mode of thought that led to Christianity. Therefore, when Church leaders were putting together a Bible, they included it.

[Macaddicttt]

???????

They would have called themselves Christian, but I'm not sure they would have called themselves Catholic. I'm not sure of the genesis of the word "catholic" to refer to the Church, but there might not have been the need to qualify "Christian" with "Catholic" for quite some time.

[Lau]

I mean, I've heard LOTS of Christians (and yes, I've been around thousands, literally) who say "If Hitler accepted Jesus in his heart as his savior, and asked for forgiveness, then he'd be forgiven and God would allow him in Heaven." Then I hear "Oh, all of those ******s are going to hell!!!!" WTF is that about? I mean, Hitler did like toying with little boys, not to mention commiting genocide. But if two men or women have sex together, it's a hell-binding sin?

Absolutely.

[Macaddicttt]

Oh c'mon now, I was just trying to break it up to get a quick laugh.

I'm very serious though, how can one group, who really, looking at history, was NOTHING until St. Paul went on his conversion spree, really determine what is good and what is evil?

I mean, I've heard LOTS of Christians (and yes, I've been around thousands, literally) who say "If Hitler accepted Jesus in his heart as his savior, and asked for forgiveness, then he'd be forgiven and God would allow him in Heaven." Then I hear "Oh, all of those ******s are going to hell!!!!" WTF is that about? I mean, Hitler did like toying with little boys, not to mention commiting genocide. But if two men or women have sex together, it's a hell-binding sin?

The people of your belief boggle my mind, my friend. Especially thsoe who follow the 700 club and Promise Keepers (like my mother and father).

I agree completely. I don't think Hitler would have been saved if he had accepted Jesus. You're confusing radical, evangelical Christianity for the whole. When I say I'm Catholic, I don't mean that I watch the 700 Club and Promise Keepers or hate all homosexuals. I hate that people do that. It gives Christianity a bad name. Evangelical, right-wing Christianity is one of the worst things in the world, according to me. These are not "my people."

Don't confuse my beliefs with those of others. I came to my beliefs through reason, not through misplaced religious fervor.

And as for why the Catholic Church is allowed to decide what is good and evil, I think you have it wrong. The Catholic Church does not decide what is good and evil. God does. The Catholic Church is God's voice on earth that communicates to the people what is right and wrong. They derive their authority from Jesus Himself and the Apostles.

[XNine]

Don't confuse my beliefs with those of others. I came to my beliefs through reason, not through misplaced religious fervor.

And as for why the Catholic Church is allowed to decide what is good and evil, I think you have it wrong. The Catholic Church does not decide what is good and evil. God does. The Catholic Church is God's voice on earth that communicates to the people what is right and wrong. They derive their authority from Jesus Himself and the Apostles.

Okay, i apologize, you're not of the same cloth as the freaks.

But now, you have a group of people (Catholics, as you have mentioned) who act as the voice of God. But don't the Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduists, and others do the same? Their prophets are the same as your Saints and apostles, are they not? Buddha is the same as Moses in their relation to God?

So now my final question. How do you prove your faith/religion/bible is 100% infaliable, that you're belief system is the RIGHT one, and every one else's is false?

[skunk]

Because the Old Testament is Judaism. It's not Christianity. Judaism was the "correct" religion before Christianity.Did it suddenly cease being "correct"?
Therefore, it's ridiculous for Christians to look at Leviticus and take laws and rules from it.Why? Does the Son overrule the Father?
They would have called themselves Christian, but I'm not sure they would have called themselves Catholic. I'm not sure of the genesis of the word "catholic" to refer to the Church, but there might not have been the need to qualify "Christian" with "Catholic" for quite some time."Catholic" means all-inclusive. In other words, the franchise owner.

[zap2]

I agree completely. I don't think Hitler would have been saved if he had accepted Jesus. You're confusing radical, evangelical Christianity for the whole. When I say I'm Catholic, I don't mean that I watch the 700 Club and Promise Keepers or hate all homosexuals. I hate that people do that. It gives Christianity a bad name. Evangelical, right-wing Christianity is one of the worst things in the world, according to me. These are not "my people."

Don't confuse my beliefs with those of others. I came to my beliefs through reason, not through misplaced religious fervor.

And as for why the Catholic Church is allowed to decide what is good and evil, I think you have it wrong. The Catholic Church does not decide what is good and evil. God does. The Catholic Church is God's voice on earth that communicates to the people what is right and wrong. They derive their authority from Jesus Himself and the Apostles.

But I thought if you really are sorry, God forgives ALL...did all stop at something? I don't forgive Hitler and never will, but I'm pretty sure he is in "all people"? Is there a limit all of a sudden?

[Macaddicttt]

Okay, i apologize, you're not of the same cloth as the freaks.

But now, you have a group of people (Catholics, as you have mentioned) who act as the voice of God. But don't the Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduists, and others do the same? Their prophets are the same as your Saints and apostles, are they not? Buddha is the same as Moses in their relation to God?

So now my final question. How do you prove your faith/religion/bible is 100% infaliable, that you're belief system is the RIGHT one, and every one else's is false?

Apology accepted.

And as for your final question, I cannot prove my faith to be 100% infallible. I looked at most major religions, found out about them, and decided which I felt to be the most likely true. I think the important thing is that one knows the reasons for which he believes what he believes.

But in the end, it's all a matter of faith. I believe that the Catholic Church is correct, and that is a perfectly reasonable belief to have.

[skunk]

And as for your final question, I cannot prove my faith to be 100% infallible. I looked at most major religions, found out about them, and decided which I felt to be the most likely true.So it's a bit like shopping?

But in the end, it's all a matter of faith. I believe that the Catholic Church is correct, and that is a perfectly reasonable belief to have.Reason has little to do with it.

[Macaddicttt]

Did it suddenly cease being "correct"?
Why? Does the Son overrule the Father?
"Catholic" means all-inclusive. In other words, the franchise owner.

No, it did not cease to be "correct" and the Son does not overrule the Father. Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism, not a cancellation of it. Judaism existed so that it could be completed when Jesus died for our sins.

The Son was sent by the Father to complete this fulfillment.

And I know what Catholic means, I was merely suggesting that the word might not have always been used. I was preempting the objection to the Catholic Church having always existed since Jesus because there was no institution explicitly labeled as such immediately following the Ascension.

[Macaddicttt]

But I thought if you really are sorry, God forgives ALL...did all stop at something? I don't forgive Hitler and never will, but I'm pretty sure he is in "all people"? Is there a limit all of a sudden?

God forgives all who are truly sorry for what they have done. So really, I can't say whom God saves. There is no limitation on forgiveness. It is possible for God to have forgiven Hitler. It is possible for God to have forgiven everyone.

[Macaddicttt]

So it's a bit like shopping?

Reason has little to do with it.

It's not exactly like shopping, it's finding what you believe to be most likely. Reason has everything to do with it. It is perfectly reasonable to believe in God, but that's probably another topic for another thread.

[skunk]

No, it did not cease to be "correct" and the Son does not overrule the Father. Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism, not a cancellation of it. Judaism existed so that it could be completed when Jesus died for our sins.Jesus died for his principles, not our sins.

[Lau]

God forgives all who are truly sorry for what they have done. So really, I can't say whom God saves. There is no limitation on forgiveness. It is possible for God to have forgiven Hitler. It is possible for God to have forgiven everyone.

But isn't that kind of warped? A guy who's commited genocide, and I think almost all would agree is pretty much sick and evil is possibly forgiven, if in the throes of death he suddenly felt remorse. Two guys or two girls who love each other, who are completely committed to each other in a loving and monogamous (and personal) relationship (and who, shock horror, are sexually attracted to each other) are somehow doomed unless they relent? That makes no sense.

[mactastic]

No, it did not cease to be "correct" and the Son does not overrule the Father. Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism, not a cancellation of it. Judaism existed so that it could be completed when Jesus died for our sins.
Now, my understanding is that Islam is purported to be the fulfillment of Christianity.

[skunk]

It is perfectly reasonable to believe in God, but that's probably another topic for another thread.It is perfectly unnecessary to believe in God.

[mactastic]

Jesus died for his principles, not our sins.
Amen.

[Macaddicttt]

Jesus died for his principles, not our sins.

That's your opinion, and I would appreciate it if you would not state your opinions as truths without any logic to back up your beliefs. This is a debate. We are not just writing down our beliefs so that others can disagree.

[Macaddicttt]

But isn't that kind of warped? A guy who's commited genocide, and I think almost all would agree is pretty much sick and evil is possibly forgiven, if in the throes of death he suddenly felt remorse. Two guys or two girls who love each other, who are completely committed to each other in a loving and monogamous (and personal) relationship (and who, shock horror, are sexually attracted to each other) are somehow doomed unless they relent? That makes no sense.

It's more complicated than that. I don't pretend to know who is saved and who is not. I believe that Hitler's sins were far greater than any sin of homosexual love could ever be, but it is not my place to say how each are punished. I would hope that Hitler receive a much greater punishment, but it is not for me to decide.

[skunk]

Now, my understanding is that Islam is purported to be the fulfillment of Christianity.Good point. But then so was the Monophysite Church, so were the Nazarites, the Thomasites, the Gnostics, the Arians, the Cathars and probably the KKK.

[XNine]

Apology accepted.

And as for your final question, I cannot prove my faith to be 100% infallible. I looked at most major religions, found out about them, and decided which I felt to be the most likely true. I think the important thing is that one knows the reasons for which he believes what he believes.

But in the end, it's all a matter of faith. I believe that the Catholic Church is correct, and that is a perfectly reasonable belief to have.


Wow...
That is one of the most logical explanations I have ever heard from a faith devoted person.

Should we ever meet, I'll buy you a drink.

Take it easy.

[Macaddicttt]

Now, my understanding is that Islam is purported to be the fulfillment of Christianity.

That is true, in a way. But I found Islam's claims that the Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible were perverted, yet Islam's somehow wasn't to be unreasonable. There are other reasons why I don't believe in Islam, but it's not really necessary for this discussion, I don't think.

[mactastic]

That's your opinion, and I would appreciate it if you would not state your opinions as truths without any logic to back up your beliefs. This is a debate. We are not just writing down our beliefs so that others can disagree.
Um... you've been stating your opinions as truths -- and in fact telling us that they are truths -- this whole time! :rolleyes:

Or have you forgotten:
To expand a little though, this is the view. God created everything and it was good. Then he created beings to populate that world, be it humans or angels or whatever. But those beings were given free will, another good thing. Now the beings can choose between different paths and different actions are bad, while others are good.

Therefore, God didn't create evil, but he created something that made evil possible. But free will out weighs all that other evil stuff, because what would be the point of the world if there was no capability for choice?

And as for God already knowing everything you're going to do, that's not the same thing as predestination. So if God creates the you, He knows how you'll end up, but He didn't create you in order that you become that. You make yourself what you are. You have free will. So God doesn't create people so that they will do evil, but He creates people, they do evil, and He knows you'll do evil.

(I was going to write, "and He knows you'll do evil before you do" but "before" implies a timeline and God exists independent of any timeline.)
I'd appreciate it if you'd not express your opinions as truths either, but I haven't been getting all pissy about it, now have I?

[Macaddicttt]

Wow...
That is one of the most logical explanations I have ever heard from a faith devoted person.

Should we ever meet, I'll buy you a drink.

Take it easy.

I'd be glad to have a drink with you, but I think the chances of that are slim. I am very happy, too, that I've been able to show that there can and should be a synthesis between logic and reasoning and faith.

[Macaddicttt]

Um... you've been stating your opinions as truths -- and in fact telling us that they are truths -- this whole time! :rolleyes:

Or have you forgotten:

I'd appreciate it if you'd not express your opinions as truths either, but I haven't been getting all pissy about it, now have I?

I wasn't not expressing my opinions as truths. I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was further explaining my beliefs to back up my other beliefs that were questioned earlier. I am trying to show people why I believe what I believe. Skunk was doing no such thing. He was just writing an inflammatory statement.

[skunk]

That's your opinion, and I would appreciate it if you would not state your opinions as truths without any logic to back up your beliefs. This is a debate. We are not just writing down our beliefs so that others can disagree.? You've spent this entire thread expounding your beliefs in supernatural authority and I'm supposed to back up my considered disagreement with your fantastical assertions by recourse to logic?

[Lau]

It's more complicated than that. I don't pretend to know who is saved and who is not. I believe that Hitler's sins were far greater than any sin of homosexual love could ever be, but it is not my place to say how each are punished. I would hope that Hitler receive a much greater punishment, but it is not for me to decide.

Ok, and I hope you don't mind me pushing this, but you say you hope that Hitler would receive a greater punishment. What if he didn't? What if unrepented homosexual love was considered a greater sin than what Hitler did, given that he was remorseful at time of death? Would you agree with that if it was what God decided?

[Macaddicttt]

Ok, and I hope you don't mind me pushing this, but you say you hope that Hitler would receive a greater punishment. What if he didn't? What if unrepented homosexual love was considered a greater sin than what Hitler did, given that he was remorseful at time of death? Would you agree with that if it was what God said?

If God said it, I guess I would have to. I mean, if God is all He's cracked up to be, I don't see how you could argue...

[Macaddicttt]

? You've spent this entire thread expounding your beliefs in supernatural authority and I'm supposed to back up my considered disagreement with your fantastical assertions by recourse to logic?

My explanation of my beliefs was directly related to this thread. I was answering people's questions about my faith. You simply wrote an inflammatory non sequitur.

[skunk]

I wasn't not expressing my opinions as truths. I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was further explaining my beliefs to back up my other beliefs that were questioned earlier. I am trying to show people why I believe what I believe. Skunk was doing no such thing. He was just writing an inflammatory statement.In what way was it inflammatory? Is Islam inflammatory for holding that Jesus was a prophet, not a god? Is Occam's razor inflammatory?

[mactastic]

I wasn't not expressing my opinions as truths. I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was further explaining my beliefs to back up my other beliefs that were questioned earlier. I am trying to show people why I believe what I believe. Skunk was doing no such thing. He was just writing an inflammatory statement.
No he wasn't. You just took it that way. I don't see how you can say that Jesus died for our sins, then get mad when Skunk says he didn't.

[mactastic]

If God said it, I guess I would have to. I mean, if God is all He's cracked up to be, I don't see how you could argue...
Speaking of inflammatory non-sequitors...

[Macaddicttt]

In what way was it inflammatory? Is Islam inflammatory for holding that Jesus was a prophet, not a god? Is Occam's razor inflammatory?

It was inflammatory in that it was a statement in direct conflict with the views I was expanding upon, yet was not an invitation to discussion. You gave to reason to believe what you stated, and is sounded like you were just trying to pick a fight or be contradictory.

If that was not your intention, I apologize. I shouldn't have said anything. You're beliefs are your right to have.

[Macaddicttt]

Speaking of inflammatory non-sequitors...

I don't see how that's a non sequitur. It was a direct response to a question posed by Lau.

:confused:

[Macaddicttt]

No he wasn't. You just took it that way. I don't see how you can say that Jesus died for our sins, then get mad when Skunk says he didn't.

Okay, then my mistake. I apologize.

[aquajet]

Is Occam's razor inflammatory?

It can cause inflammation.

Back to a previous topic...I'd like to know the reasoning behind homosexuality's sinful nature. Maybe something a little more in-depth than "no man shall lie with mankind..."

[Lau]

If God said it, I guess I would have to. I mean, if God is all He's cracked up to be, I don't see how you could argue...

Ok, but that would mean that you thought that two people who love each other and had done no harm to anyone else were more evil than Hitler. :confused: That's the kind of thing that has made me always have a huge problem with any religion — things like that just don't make sense to me. How can some guy who was one of the most evil dictators of our time who killed and tortured thousands could even be considered as more evil than two peaceful human beings in love?

[Macaddicttt]

Ok, but that would mean that you thought that two people who love each other and had done no harm to anyone else were more evil than Hitler. :confused: That's the kind of thing that has made me always have a huge problem with any religion — things like that just don't make sense to me. How can some guy who was one of the most evil dictators of our time who killed and tortured thousands could even be considered as more evil than two peaceful human beings in love?

Wait, I'm a bit confused. I don't believe that to be true. I don't find homosexual sex worse than Hitler. That's ridiculous. Your question asked, what would I think if God thought so. I'd have little choice, wouldn't I? Wouldn't you? If you died and God was standing there and told you that it was true, how could you refute that?

I misunderstand your question, or at least the reason for it. I, for one, certainly don't believe in a religion that condemns homosexual sex as worse than murder. So please don't have a bad view of all religions just because some right-wing wackos believe such idiotic things.

[skunk]

It was inflammatory in that it was a statement in direct conflict with the views I was expanding upon, yet was not an invitation to discussion. You gave to reason to believe what you stated, and is sounded like you were just trying to pick a fight or be contradictory.

If that was not your intention, I apologize. I shouldn't have said anything. You're beliefs are your right to have.You find the dogma of the Catholic Church "more likely" to be correct than that of other religions. I find its assertions of Jesus' divinity an utterly irrelevant appeal to superstition.

[Macaddicttt]

You find the dogma of the Catholic Church "more likely" to be correct than that of other religions. I find its assertions of Jesus' divinity an utterly irrelevant appeal to superstition.

Then to each his own. It's certainly your right to believe that.

I think this might be (hopefully) an amicable end to this discussion. :)

[skunk]

Wait, I'm a bit confused. I don't believe that to be true. I don't find homosexual sex worse than Hitler. That's ridiculous. Your question asked, what would I think if God thought so. I'd have little choice, wouldn't I? Wouldn't you? If you died and God was standing there and told you that it was true, how could you refute that?But you're saying you'd accept it as the word of god. I'd look for the door. After giving him or her a piece of my mind.

I misunderstand your question, or at least the reason for it. I, for one, certainly don't believe in a religion that condemns homosexual sex as worse than murder. So please don't have a bad view of all religions just because some right-wing wackos believe such idiotic things.On the contrary, you are claiming that even if your god made such a choice, you would go along with it. "I was only following orders".

[Lau]

If you died and God was standing there and told you that it was true, how could you refute that?

I would think that he was wrong. Big time.

[Macaddicttt]

I would think that he was wrong. Big time.

But if He were God, how could you? He created the world, He created the rules by which right and wrong are determined. It's His world. If you disagree, you'd be wrong by default.

[skunk]

But if He were God, how could you? He created the world, He created the rules by which right and wrong are determined. It's His world. If you disagree, you'd be wrong by default.If you disagree, you can uninvent him as quickly as he was dreamed up. Then he'd have no world. He'd be on the street.

[Macaddicttt]

If you disagree, you can uninvent him as quickly as he was dreamed up. Then he'd have no world. He'd be on the street.

Umm... Okay? I think we have different views of God, so it's not possible to see eye to eye on this question.

[Lau]

But if He were God, how could you? He created the world, He created the rules by which right and wrong are determined. It's His world. If you disagree, you'd be wrong by default.

But I believe in making my own decisions. If a politician screwed up, I'd call them on it. Equally, I trust my own judgement on things, made by God or not. If God would really think something like that, I would think he was wrong. Even if I believe he created the world, I would call him wrong on this one. I don't say anyone's right, from God to my friends, or authors, or parents or anything. I make up my own mind. If I think someone's wrong about something, I'll ask them, and I'll discuss it with them. I appreciate you discussing things in this thread, and I hope you challenge your own opinions as well.

[skunk]

Umm... Okay? I think we have different views of God, so it's not possible to see eye to eye on this question.Yup. It's been a slice. :)

[Macaddicttt]

But I believe in making my own decisions. If a politician screwed up, I'd call them on it. Equally, I trust my own judgement on things, made by God or not. If God would really think something like that, I would think he was wrong. Even if I believe he created the world, I would call him wrong on this one. I don't say anyone's right, from God to my friends, or authors, or parents or anything. I make up my own mind. If I think someone's wrong about something, I'll ask them, and I'll discuss it with them. I appreciate you discussing things in this thread, and I hope you challenge your own opinions as well.

Oh, I challenge things and opinions all the time. I just don't see how it's possible to do so with God. In my mind, God is the end all, be all. What do you get by disagreeing with God? He'll just do whatever He wants with you. In my mind, by definition, what is right is God's will. Your logic is mind boggling to me.

[skunk]

Oh, I challenge things and opinions all the time. I just don't see how it's possible to do so with God. In my mind, God is the end all, be all. What do you get by disagreeing with God? He'll just do whatever He wants with you. In my mind, by definition, what is right is God's will. Your logic is mind boggling to me.Your willing subservience to the caprice of an imaginary being is equally mind-boggling to me. But there you are.

[Lau]

Oh, I challenge things and opinions all the time. I just don't see how it's possible to do so with God. In my mind, God is the end all, be all. What do you get by disagreeing with God? He'll just do whatever He wants with you. In my mind, by definition, what is right is God's will. Your thinking is boggling to me.

It's funny, because your way of thinking is boggling to me. :D I can't ever imagine believing in anyone or anything so strongly that I could never challenge their views. But I suppose that the difference here, if you believe in God the way you do it must be massively hard (if not impossible) to challenge that point of view. But I'd hate to be tied down to a way of thinking like that (and to me that is what it is — you believe in something that I don't), I'd much rather evaluate what I think to be good or harmful throughout my life. That will probably change between the age of 26 and 76, but that's great. The world changes too. Things have changed in the last 50 years, and I want to embrace the next 50. The people I know are far better indicators of what's good and bad than an all-seeing guy up there.

[Macaddicttt]

Yes, it is always important to keep an open mind. We all should constantly question our beliefs, and those of the people around us, to further refine them.

[P-Worm]

I have been following this whole thread and find it very intersting. As some of you may remember, I spent the past two years of my life being a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the Mormons). I had many a conversation just like this one while I spoke with people and I find the same problem here that I did on my mission. The problem is that people want God to be proven/disproven by hard evidence or compelling logic. When it comes to absolute truth (meaning what is absolutely true, not what someone believes) I believe that it is impossible to come to an absolute conclusion based on evidence or logic reasoning. I believe this because if we look throughout history, many people have been convinced of various things that turned out to be false. Such instances include Earth being the center of the universe, or the Ether that was a medium for light. Who knows, maybe we'll look back on what we have discovered about DNA someday and see that although it was an admirable start, we were way off base.

What I always asked people to do was to seriously consider what I believe and put it to the test by asking God themselves (this usually included reading The Book of Mormon and asking God if it was a true book).

I believe that this principle in seeking, studying and asking can be applied to anything and I believe that it applies here. If you seriously want to know if God exists, think about it and ask Him in prayer. That may seem like an odd thing to do if you don't believe in God, but that is the way he has asked us to find out. If He does exist, and He doesn't lie, He'll answer you.

Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.

If you really want to know, seek God, ask Him and search your feelings. I know that God exists because of the feelings that I have felt as I prayed. He has answered me. Although you may not believe me, I leave you my witness that this is true because I can't deny what I have felt and no amount of evidence or logic can change that. I'm more than happy to share what I believe and explain logically why I believe what I do, but that is not the source of my testimony.

P-Worm

[skunk]

Bring back the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm off to my imaginary bed.

[Macaddicttt]

P-Worm, you're on your own. I'm not a big fan of the Mormon Church, and that "ask God and He'll prove He exists" thing isn't for me. That's a little too touchy-feely. It's a little too Protestant for my tastes.

[xsedrinam]

P-Worm, you're on your own. I'm not a big fan of the Mormon Church, and that "ask God and He'll prove He exists" thing isn't for me. That's a little too touchy-feely. It's a little too Protestant for my tastes.
Ahem. You can keep your low opinions of the value of warm, touchy-feely to yourself. Thank you very much. :p

[Queso]

I don't see how a true God would ever say love in any form was wrong. I believe anything in The Bible that says otherwise is proof of man's arrogance and should be discarded.

You see, if God is here and did build the universe, the only certainty is that stupid humans aren't clever enough to know or interpret His (or Her) mind, even those who are seen as prophets. That's why I'm cynical towards religions. To me it's all charlatanism because people aren't equipped to know The Truth even if there is one.

Not meaning to offend, but if we're being honest about our beliefs and opinions mine is no less valid than anyone else's. Or more for that matter.

[skunk]

I don't see how a true God would ever say love in any form was wrong.You're assuming that god is a liberal?

[Queso]

You're assuming that god is a liberal?
No, I'm saying that if there is a true God, He created us all to be who we are, and therefore would love us however we turned out. We would all be a part of a jigsaw that He designed.

Of course if he weren't the true creator and was just pretending to be, he could make up his mind as he went along, since he wouldn't really have a clue what the intention of the pieces were. And if man has created a pretend god (in his image as it were), that would also hold.

I suppose I just don't know. As I said, humans aren't equipped to know for sure, which is why religions need to rely on Faith.

[skunk]

No, I'm saying that if there is a true God, he created us all to be who we are, and therefore would love us however we turned out. If there is a god, there's absolutely no guarantee he or she is "good".

[Queso]

If there is a god, there's absolutely no guarantee he or she is "good".
Create a universe simply for amusement value? Yeah, that's a valid argument. It would explain the egotistical need for worship anyway.

That is, if God actually does need all that, and it's not simply man imposing political heirarchies again :rolleyes:

[Blue Velvet]

Astounding. I've met a Christian recently who I rather like and admire... she's a funky Church of England type, who manages to reconcile her beliefs with having the occasional pint, having close gay friends, sometimes swearing like a trooper... and not having the slightest problem with the likes of me and my kin.

She's also putting her good thoughts into practice and is soon off to South Africa for a few months to build houses for AIDS charities/patients.

If only others could be like her in both word and deed.

[Lau]

Astounding. I've met a Christian recently who I rather like and admire... she's a funky Church of England type, who manages to reconcile her beliefs with having the occasional pint, having close gay friends, sometimes swearing like a trooper... and not having the slightest problem with the likes of me and my kin.

She's also putting her good thoughts into practice and is soon off to South Africa for a few months to build houses for AIDS charities/patients.

If only others could be like her in both word and deed.

Totally agree. An ex-flatmate of mine was similar to what your friend sounds like. He's a top bloke, and I also really admired him for the way he chose to do this.

Interestingly, at the same time, my boyfriend's flatmate was a member of the same church, and was the polar opposite — used to interpret the bible to back up his own opinions, was deeply intolerant and backward thinking and wasn't thoughtful or caring towards others at all.

[skunk]

Astounding. I've met a Christian recently who I rather like and admire... she's a funky Church of England type, who manages to reconcile her beliefs with having the occasional pint, having close gay friends, sometimes swearing like a trooper... and not having the slightest problem with the likes of me and my kin.Kind of restores one's faith in faith, doesn't it? :)

[solvs]

If only others could be like her in both word and deed.
They are. They just aren't the vocal ones. And even some of them are taken by the words of people who want to use their beliefs to gain power and money. Even if those false prophets don't even believe themselves, which most of the time they don't. But people want to believe in something, so they let themselves get fooled. The worst though are the ones who are simply hiding behind religion to justify their beliefs. Those are the ones that make everyone else look bad.

And yet those are the ones we see all over the TV and hear about in the news, because they're the most vocal.

[MarkCollette]

Sorry, haven't really followed the thread, just read the linked article.

I just found it funny how those people all needed permission to get freaky! Hahaha.