Originally posted by PsychoPawnI believe they are both suffering as a result of parents, grandparents,
You'd have to depend on this idea of the sin being given from parent to child then since children who have definitely done nothing other than be born have suffered greatly and I find it hard too believe they have actually committed any actual sins.
The validity of the claim that sin causes suffering is also suspect at best. Of course it depends on what you really define sin as being.
and on an on, as well as other's choices as they start their life, where
ever you believe that point in their development to be (doesn't matter
when you think it begins not really part of this discussion), and that as
they grow they start also show human nature for what it is too. This
does not mean that as babies they sin, I don't believe you can sin
until you know right from wrong, and at what point is that?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonGod limited our sexual experiences to marriage, and marriage is
So does that mean you believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin simply because it spreads sexually transmitted disease (STD)? If so, then do you think that a person that has sex outside of marriage but does so with such precautions that it is even less likely for him/her to get STD than the average faithfully married, would he/she still be “sinning” and, if so, why?
also between a man and woman. Jesus took it ever beyond that when
he said,
Matthew 5:28
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
The because or the reason why, I guess I could offer suggestions on
why I think it is sin, but they would only be my suggestions or thoughts
on the matter. Sin isn't declared by the words of KellyJay, but by God
and so no matter how I justify myself or others if I sin, my justification
will be meaningless, and more times than not actually show I knew
better yet did it anyway.
Kelly
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYou are twisting my words! I said if people married and limited their
I agree partially that if all sex were limited to marriage then STDs would probably go away. I don't agree that it being restricted to being between a man and a woman is even relevant though.
The problem is, it's not the lack of sinning that causes the lack of STDs.
If people were monogamous, but not married, then according to your definition they ...[text shortened]... TDs would be halted because people would be having safer sex, but they would still be sinning.
sex between just the one they married that STD would go away. If
people did as you said married regardless of the limitation of man
and woman, that to would greatly reduce STD if not do away with it
altogether, simply because it takes people having more than one
partner to spread it among the population and keep the diseases
going. That would stop STD, but wouldn't stop sin, even if every man
and woman had sex out side of marriage but did so just with one
person, it would stop STD, but continue to be sin.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseOh please, spare me, your lot grinds their bodies up in the womb, and
So a child who has a mind unfolding like a flower and still under construction, a lot of advanced pieces not there, starts to exhibit selfishness and that is the beginning of sin? You and your so-called religious buddies are the sick ones who would tell a child they are born into sin, that being a child with a not fully developed brain they are sinning is t ...[text shortened]... s person could ever do. Nice job, ruining the mind of a babe to bend them to your sick religion.
calls them something sub-human in the womb, and your going to tell
me my beliefs about sin and the human race is something to be
looked down on, reality check sonhouse!
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo who is making the assumptions now? You automatically think it is my lot to grind up their bodies in the womb? So now I am a baby killer?
Oh please, spare me, your lot grinds their bodies up in the womb, and
calls them something sub-human in the womb, and your going to tell
me my beliefs about sin and the human race is something to be
looked down on, reality check sonhouse!
Kelly
I never said I condone abortion. I think it is the right of a woman to control her own body and especially in cases of rape where the woman is forcibly made pregnant that is her decision. I know full well the decision will weigh heavy on her mind for the rest of her days.
I also know every child that gets converted to your so-called religion out of fear is another condemnation of your faith, every 18 year old who gets killed in the name of your god is another condemnation of your faith.
The human race will always be held back from its potential as long as death religions around the world reigns supreme. Your religion worships death as only a way station so you can rationalize all sorts of reprehensible behavior as the salvation of mankind. All it really does is ensure the future killings of kids, the binding of minds to ancient dogma that has no place in our modern world where science is opening our eyes to the true extent of the universe and the workings of the inner self, science is beginning to unravel the workings of the mind neuron by neuron and to understand how we went from bacteria in the sea a couple of billion years ago to evolve to us and hopefully beyond.
If a truly evolved race were to emerge refusing to believe in all your many headed gods they would become the enemies of your state and would be hunted down like dogs. That way you could keep on the same path of saying humans are the pinnacle of creation. Of course we are born into sin, and children must be frightened into believing but hey, its for their everlasting soul......
- Joined
- 06 Jan 06
- Moves
- 32476
I started this whole thread and I think Sonhouse YOU are talking the most sense of all the responders.. but dont forget sometimes we need to
sympathise with the evangelical Christians who in some cases are very scared deep down to question their beliefs.
I'm signing off now for good before I get bashed with any Bibles !
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseYou talk about a possible glorious future for mankind with science at it's helm leading the way - but you did this without mentioning love or justice once. That's why this world still needs Jesus and spirituality will not go away as easily as you might you think. Unless the human race places love and compassion at the centre of everything , all the science in the world will not get us there. If the cuban missile crisis had gone the other way , those left alive now would have cursed "scientific progress" as the great disease of mankind.....it could still happen you know.
So who is making the assumptions now? You automatically think it is my lot to grind up their bodies in the womb? So now I am a baby killer?
I never said I condone abortion. I think it is the right of a woman to control her own body and especially in cases of rape where the woman is forcibly made pregnant that is her decision. I know full well the decision ...[text shortened]... in, and children must be frightened into believing but hey, its for their everlasting soul......
For all our science and all our exploits to the moon , poverty , injustice , war and hatred still reign. Greed seems stronger than ever in the world and fear and ignorance run amok. What hope does science offer us in all this apart from more horrific ways of killing each other? Can it give us hope?
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, if I understand you correctly here (and please correct me if I am wrong), you don’t believe it is a “sin” because it spreads sexually transmitted diseases but you DO believe it is a “sin” because of your interpretation of the Bible which you take to be an accurate representation of the words of God?
God limited our sexual experiences to marriage, and marriage is
also between a man and woman. Jesus took it ever beyond that when
he said,
Matthew 5:28
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
The because or the reason why, I guess I could offer suggestions on
why I think it ...[text shortened]... e meaningless, and more times than not actually show I knew
better yet did it anyway.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI believe they are both suffering as a result of parents, grandparents,
I believe they are both suffering as a result of parents, grandparents,
and on an on, as well as other's choices as they start their life, where
ever you believe that point in their development to be (doesn't matter
when you think it begins not really part of this discussion), and that as
they grow they start also show human nature for what it is too. T ...[text shortened]... don't believe you can sin
until you know right from wrong, and at what point is that?
Kelly
and on an on,
So you believe a child of 2 who gets leukemia is suffering because of their parents and grandparents? Is that true? I just want to be clear.
This
does not mean that as babies they sin, I don't believe you can sin
until you know right from wrong, and at what point is that?
Good question, but I'm not the one who believes "sin" per se exists.
Originally posted by KellyJayHow was I twisting your words?
You are twisting my words! I said if people married and limited their
sex between just the one they married that STD would go away. If
people did as you said married regardless of the limitation of man
and woman, that to would greatly reduce STD if not do away with it
altogether, simply because it takes people having more than one
partner to spread it ...[text shortened]... of marriage but did so just with one
person, it would stop STD, but continue to be sin.
Kelly
I AGREED with you that limiting sex between married couples would reduce or get rid of the spread of STDs.
My problem is your claim that this was because of "sin". You haven't made it clear at all how I was twisting your words at all.
I'm not saying anything would stop sin, nor did I. I don't care about stopping sin.
Originally posted by KellyJayWow.. did you enjoy beating down that strawman Kelly?
Oh please, spare me, your lot grinds their bodies up in the womb, and
calls them something sub-human in the womb, and your going to tell
me my beliefs about sin and the human race is something to be
looked down on, reality check sonhouse!
Kelly
I hope you did.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is a simple matter, you want to cry about suffering of children yet
So who is making the assumptions now? You automatically think it is my lot to grind up their bodies in the womb? So now I am a baby killer?
I never said I condone abortion. I think it is the right of a woman to control her own body and especially in cases of rape where the woman is forcibly made pregnant that is her decision. I know full well the decision ...[text shortened]... in, and children must be frightened into believing but hey, its for their everlasting soul......
what is done in the womb is justified by your stance on rights.
Suffering and death are a part of our life without God and judgment,
those things would still be a part of our life if you are correct and there
isn't a God. There would not be any real moral stance on any of the
suffering either, it would simply be a natural state of things, since
everyone dies at some point and I'd dare say everyone suffers too, so
there must be nothing good or bad about that, it is just the way it is.
You reject God and sin out of hand, so nothing said about them will
matter to you. So too your complaints about the state of things, even
if God isn't real, people suffer and die. They do it with religion and
they do it without religon, so complaining about one part of life about
a topic that is shared by all no matter what they believe is just foolish
in my opinion. With or without religion people suffer, with or without
religion people die, and no matter what your stance is on that topic
you will both suffer and die.
You could complain the sky is blue, or a leaf is green, or water is wet
and get the same results. You could win your debate have the world
reject religion out of hand, and that will not stop people suffering and
dying. You need to be God for that one.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonCorrect, you can have sex with your spouse and give them a sexually
So, if I understand you correctly here (and please correct me if I am wrong), you don’t believe it is a “sin” because it spreads sexually transmitted diseases but you DO believe it is a “sin” because of your interpretation of the Bible which you take to be an accurate representation of the words of God?
transmitted disease and not have sinned. You can lust after someone
in your heart, not have sex with them, and according to Jesus' words
sin in your heart.
Kelly