Wouldee wrote:
"I will leave now but i'm leaving my obnoxious humor behind!!!"

Thank you so much wouldee, this is very generous of you.

James...lol...

you know how I feel...you are a riot sometimes..




Wouldee...

I am glad to have met your acquaintance... and look forward to more reads and your further understanding(s)




Voile...

You are right on the nail's head... "dead on"...as it were, as far as your belief and conclusions of my definition... however, I am of male persuasion...lol... although it is not the first time that my written context led to that assumption... no offense meant, I am sure, and none was taken...lol


To all...

My teachers have been many... my teachers have been few... and came from just one....

There are an infinite amount of ways God is shown and/or experienced in this life of ours... We make it what it is... We create reality... and we believe that which we create... not to mention create that which we believe... We do have a free will... If only I could fully grasp the implications of such a notion...

Well now, this is indeed a clarity that needed to be made. I will FOREVER MORE, rememeber this little remedy 'Abra', when next I am faced with that rediculous phrase

Love the sinner hate the sin!

In fact I may begin my own little phrase:
Hate the interpretation, but forgive the interpreter

Just one example....

If you think of having an affair Sin

If you have an affair Sin

dances around with pink silk panties on her head then runs like hell!!!

Redykeulous wrote:
“when next I am faced with that rediculous phrase - Love the sinner hate the sin!”

That is an utterly absurd phrase that implies a complete misunderstanding of the entire concept of sin as far as I’m concerned.

I’ve always known that sin was contextual even before I finally found this air-tight Aristotelian proof based on premises from the Bible itself!

I should put in for a Nobel Prize on this one.

Redykeulous wrote:
”In fact I may begin my own little phrase: Hate the interpretation, but forgive the interpreter”

Sounds like ammunition for mortar fire on the front lines of the unwarranted judgmental wars.

Eljay
==================================================================
You have described an particular attribute of sin - however, you have not defined it. Sin is also a LACK of action (as in the case of omission. Not doing something that would be right), also there is the sin of thought. Which I suppose would be intent. Lust, Hate, envy, would be an example of such. There's no "action" involved with these.
==========================================================
All you have described is that action can be a physical property as well as a mental one. This is the reason why Hebrew men were required to study their scriptures, their laws, and to pray and meditate on the Lord, any time their mind and body were not absorbed in ‘right actions’. To prevent the mind from ‘wondering’.

Obviously, this is not something new. But it does make one wonder; how can two people dating, with the intention of a possible marriage, stop their minds and bodies from acting/reacting to the emotions of love? And why, how, can any god interpret this as sinful, when it is obviously a natural endowment, that was included in the parameters of our making by that same creator? I don't think most Christians would view that kind of emotion, even passion, that is based on the 'right'(right reasons) actions of love

Eljay:
====================================================================
However, you are assuming this is an acceptable and valid premise because some "interpret" this to be so. It is also a valid interpretation to state that having sex with someone is the definition of marriage. It is what marriage is defined as being in Genesis - and re-iterated by Jesus in Matthew. So it's unclear whether or not this premise can be accepted as valid and exclusive.

Since you have not stated any valid premises yet - you haven't PROVED anything.
==============================================================

I’m not sure what you were trying to argue, but what you have succeeded in doing is opening another can or worms. God said be fruitful and multiply, but somewhere between that statement and the New Testament, terms were defined to indicate plurality of partners was no longer pleasing to God. Isn’t that when ‘marriage’ became a bond, a ‘license’ to have sex?


Abra Said:
================================================================
If a same-gender relationship is a loving relationship of the best INTENT then it can’t be a sin.

The Bible has clearly shown us via the institution of marriage that sin is INTENT and not the ACT.
===============================================================
To which Eljy responds with a look of “NO WAY”.

So according to your very definition of sin – it is any physical or mental act that is ‘intentionally’ carried on. Every Christian knows that lustful thought is a sin, so to have any such thoughts must be intentional, as the sin is understood and should be avoided.

However, for heterosexuals and for homosexuals there is no intent to sin, there is simply the same ‘emotional’ as well as ‘sexual’ responses to a possible life long partner, therefore, in accordance with how Christians would view this natural reaction, there is no sin committed as the actions were taken with an innocent 'right' intent.

To create a loving bond for a life long partnership has no intent to sin, therefore, no sin conceived, no sin intended, no action that goes against the ‘normal’ uncontrollable actions of our being.

Dianna wrote:
“To create a loving bond for a life long partnership has no intent to sin, therefore, no sin conceived, no sin intended, no action that goes against the ‘normal’ uncontrollable actions of our being.”

Beautifully stated Dianna. There can be no sin if all that exists is good intention.

It’s as simple as pie, as clear as day, and obviously as natural as divinity itself.

And now it even has a perfect Aristotelian proof to back it up.

It’s an omen of divine inspiration.

creativesoul,

My sincerest apologies!!!
An innocent oversight on my part,
As I trust you have sensed, ... totally unconscious.

I bid you good night SIR!!!

Abracadabra,

That is a great attempt to rationalize about about fornication, but let's reason this subject.

God created one man and one woman. God created the woman from the man and stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman. When the two are married, they become one flesh.

Genesis 2:24
===========================================================
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
===========================================================

God required that sex be within marriage. We see this in the Old Testament long before the ten commandments.

We see throughout the Bible that marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people.

We see descriptions of very tight family structures centered around a married couple. Until that a child is married, they live within the protection of their parents.

Fornication is unique, because it is the one sin a man or woman can commit against themself.

1 Corinthians 6:18
============================================================
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
============================================================

So God opposes fornication because his desire is for couples to be in loving, commited, life-long relationships. God warns us that fornication is sinning against our own bodies. What would the world be like if nobody commited fornication? There would be no adultry, there would be no vernerial diseases. There would be no children without fathers. There would be no welfare state, wherein single mothers are dependant upon the state to raise their children. God's plan is to maintain the dignity and health of each person, by placing them into marriage.

See, I used the Bible to discuss the Bible. To go outside and make assumptions about why God opposes fornication is illogical. The Bible can only be interpreted with the Bible. You can't add your own notions of what is right and what is wrong or make such incredible leaps of logic which you are so fond of doing.

God created adam first as a whole species unto itself. It was created as such, because it was in God's image. We can assume two things from this, either that the nature of adam was meant to be singular and everlasting, or that adam included a prolific ability to 'self-create'.

We can never know, because adam chose to be like the other creatures, maybe adam viewed other human forms as Its peers and 'desired' to be like them. From the special 'whole' creation God divided adam to allow it the ability to have a made and procreate like its peers.

So the purpose of man and woman was to procreate rather than self-create.

In this respect it would make sense that some ancient cultures saw homosexuals, hermephrodites and 'contraries'(reverse gender identity) as special creatures. For they somehow retained what was origianlly created as a whole, undivided.

Perhaps they are closer than people think to a true self-imaged Godly creation!

Redykeulous,

Since God could not have male and female parts, because Jesus taught that God is spirit, we have to assume physical appearance is not the image in which we are made. Humans crave to see justice done. We love crime dramas, judge shows, court TV and any other story in which we see justice served. We feel mercy to those who are weaker than ourselves. We feel love and compassion. We are made in the spiritual image of God, we have a natural desire to see those things which God loves. But at the same time, we are at war with our soul, which desires self rule and self satisfaction. Our soul desires those things which feel good, not necessarily those things which are good for us. It is impossible to take a single idea out of the Bible and interpret that idea correctly. The Bible must be interpreted by the Bible. Yes, from your standpoint, that cyclical logic. But from the standpoint that the Bible is the Word of God, it is the only logical course of action. From either standpoint, it is illogical to take an idea or theme from of a text and try to find the meaning outside of that text. Context is everything.

Spider wrote:
“God required that sex be within marriage. We see this in the Old Testament long before the ten commandments.”

Well, we must take into consideration that the Bible is thousands of years old and has been translated by interpreting humans ever since. We only need to take a small glance around today and we can see how grossly differnet everyone’s interpretation of the Bible is. Therefore we have no choice but to realize that the original text of our cherished doctrine has been contaminated by human interpretation. So we should view any verbatim conclusions from the text with extreme skepticism. After all, we wouldn’t want to put thoughts into God’s mind that were never there to begin with.

I personally don’t believe that God ever meant that sex outside of marriage is a sin. God loves things that are beautiful and good, and if said sex is beautiful and good then there can be nothing wrong with it. I think this is perfectly clear in all of God’s messages.

Spider wrote:
”We see throughout the Bible that marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people.

We see descriptions of very tight family structures centered around a married couple. Until that a child is married, they live within the protection of their parents.”

Yes, here we see the main purpose of marriage is to serve the offspring. Therefore it’s perfectly natural to conclude that anyone who has sex and should be willing to participate in the proper raising of their offspring. As long as the intent is there then all is good, because remember, to even think something is the same as doing it. If this applies to sinful act, then it must also apply to acts that are good. We can’t be having double-standards because we know that our God is not two-faced.

However, having said that, we only need to take a quick glance around today to see that many married couples make lousy parents. So God really needs to come back and reassess the situation.

Why do you think God has abandon mankind? Do you think he gave up on us and went away never to return? It does appear that he hasn’t kept very many of the promises that he has made thus far as it is. He promised to take care of those who believe in him yet he clearly does not. We must deal with these stark realities and realize that God may have well given up on the human race altogether. After all, it’s clear that he is a neophyte God and had done a lot of experiments with humans early on. Maybe he God bored with the way humans are progressing and just moved on to start a brand new creation elsewhere.

Spider wrote:
”So God opposes fornication because his desire is for couples to be in loving, commited, life-long relationships. God warns us that fornication is sinning against our own bodies. What would the world be like if nobody commited fornication? There would be no adultry, there would be no vernerial diseases. There would be no children without fathers. There would be no welfare state, wherein single mothers are dependant upon the state to raise their children. God's plan is to maintain the dignity and health of each person, by placing them into marriage.”

There’s no sense in dreaming of what the world would be like if it were perfect. Obviously God didn’t create it that way. Marriage is not a cure-all and we have countless examples of that.

Spider wrote:
”See, I used the Bible to discuss the Bible. To go outside and make assumptions about why God opposes fornication is illogical. The Bible can only be interpreted with the Bible. You can't add your own notions of what is right and what is wrong or make such incredible leaps of logic which you are so fond of doing.”

Yes, I see that this is your approach. However, I feel that God is much more omnipresent than this. If God inspires men to write things then there is no reason to believe that they should have all ended up in just one book. To believe that is to do nothing more than become an idol worshiper of a book and lose our way.

It is much better to look for messages and inspiration from God in all of God’s creation. That makes much more logical sense. Besides, it really makes no sense to speak about logic and the Bible in the same sentence. It is perfectly clear that there is nothing logical about the bible whatsoever. From the afterthought of Eve, which denounces the idea that God had a master plan, to the fact that Jesus had stated that everything he predicted would occur within the current generation, which it did not, clearly shows that the Bible contains logical inconsistencies. This is the one truth that we must accept from the Bible. It’s God’s truth and we must caress it with loving minds.

God obviously needs our help, and as his devoted servants we must strive to make his word logically consistent and rid it of the obvious errors that humans have been writing into it over the millennium. We have no choice but to remedy the situation using the gift of rational thinking that God has so graciously bestowed upon us. That gift of alert sentience clearly demands that we investigate all of God’s creation and not get bogged down in one over-used book as an idol. We must embrace all religions and spirituality that claim to be inspired by God.

Perhaps his real test of us is to see whether we will ever be able to stand on our own two feet and be able to proudly proclaim to him that we have finally grown up. After all, we do know that this is precisely what would make any father very proud of his children.

I feel very confident that God wants us to start using rational thinking and go beyond the original writings that have been tainted by humans through the superstitious dark ages.

This is why God gave us great men like Aristotle, to teach us how to think rationally and with the clarity of honest skepticism. The Aristotelian proof that I gave earlier in this thread is a shinning example of the perfect mathematical mind of God. I’m certain that God wants us to start using our brains and quit being such hopeless dependents.

Spider wrote:
“From either standpoint, it is illogical to take an idea or theme from of a text and try to find the meaning outside of that text. Context is everything.”

I couldn’t agree more. Context is everything. I’ve been saying this all along. All sin must necessarily be contextual and therefore cannot be judged in an absolute sense. This was indeed the main point of this thread and I’m glad to see that you do indeed agree on this point.

Therefore we cannot tell other people what is sinful because we can't know the context of their lives.

This is why Jesus taught us not to judge others.

Abracadabra,

==============================================================
I couldn’t agree more. Context is everything. I’ve been saying this all along. All sin must necessarily be contextual and therefore cannot be judged in an absolute sense. This was indeed the main point of this thread and I’m glad to see that you do indeed agree on this point.
==============================================================

You take extraordinary amounts of pleasure from lying, do you know why that is? You know full well that I was speaking about context of the scriptures. I can show you from the Bible a verse which proves that it doesn't matter what your intent is, it is the commission of the sin which is evil.

==============================================================
I personally don’t believe that God ever meant that sex outside of marriage is a sin. God loves things that are beautiful and good, and if said sex is beautiful and good then there can be nothing wrong with it. I think this is perfectly clear in all of God’s messages.
==============================================================

Your morality is based on what you think is good and bad, Christian morality is based on God's will. Your religion is self serving and infantile, Christianity demands spiritual and emotional growth. Christians grow up as they grow older, but you stagnate by believing that your every action is moral.

==============================================================
He promised to take care of those who believe in him yet he clearly does not.
==============================================================

For someone who claims to have been a Christian, you know so very little about Christianity. Jesus promised that his followers would suffer, just as he had to suffer. The Bible tells us that suffering is a normal part of life, even for the saved. Look at the book of Job and tell me that those who believe in God don't suffer. God will take care of us in the next life and bless us in this one, but we are never promised that God will "take care of" us.

==============================================================
Yes, I see that this is your approach. However, I feel that God is much more omnipresent than this.
==============================================================

The only reasonable way to discuss the Bible is to use the Bible. If you choose otherwise, I'm not surprised in the least. You rationalize everything, I believe that you are afraid to use reason about the spiritual, because you already know the conclusion at which you will arrive.

Spider wrote:
“You take extraordinary amounts of pleasure from lying”

You seem to take extraordinary amounts of pleasure in calling me a liar. This is actually against the forum rules Spider. I have done no such thing.

You stated that context is everything and I agreed with you. How can that be considered to be a lie?

Spider wrote:
“Your morality is based on what you think is good and bad, Christian morality is based on God's will.”

You’re jumping to unwarranted conclusions that have no basis in reality. You have no idea what I base my morality on.

Spider wrote:
“Your religion is self serving and infantile”

Another personal insult. Mike actually asked us to report these. I don’t like to do that Spider but Mike suggests that we are supposed to report personal attacks. Saying that my religion is self-serving and infantile is certainly a personal attack Spider. It is your opinion and has no basis in reality.

Spider wrote:
“Christianity demands spiritual and emotional growth. Christians grow up as they grow older, but you stagnate by believing that your every action is moral.”

Again you are jumping to totally unwarranted conclusions based on your complete lack of knowledge about me.

I am a man of God. I am very close to Her. Your insinuations to the contrary are hostile, unproductive and totally unwarranted.

Spider wrote:
” The only reasonable way to discuss the Bible is to use the Bible. If you choose otherwise, I'm not surprised in the least. You rationalize everything, I believe that you are afraid to use reason about the spiritual, because you already know the conclusion at which you will arrive”

I disagree that the only reasonable way to discuss the Bible is to use the Bible. To me that represents a very unhealthy closed-minded approach. God has created the entire universe, and the Bible clearly contains contaminations by man. There can be no doubt about that. I am being perfectly reasonable in my approach to accepting all of God’s creation as my guide.

I do use reason and I do not agree with your semantics of “rationalize”. I use the word in a completely different way, to simply mean “To Apply Reason”.

I don’t study the Bible for my spiritual health. I am already completely at peace with God. My destiny is in her hands and I am completely comfortable with that as I know that she can be fully trusted with my heart and soul.

Again, your unwarranted conclusion that I fear anything is totally absurd. I believe that I can safely say that you have absolutely no clue when it comes to assessing my true nature. This obsession of yours to pass judgments on other people is extremely unhealthy and IMHO un-Christian-like. I would sincerely suggest that you try focusing inward instead of outward for a while.

Abracadabra,

I have asked you about your religion and morality in the past. At one point you said that your religion was about making you feel good and you questioned the validity of any religion which doesn't make you feel good.

==============================================================
“Your religion is self serving and infantile”

Another personal insult. Mike actually asked us to report these.
==============================================================

That's a comment on your religion. If that's against the forum rules, then I will accept whatever punishment Mike feels is appropriate. But to say that a comment about your religion is a personal insult? Then you insult every Christian here with frightening frequency.

==============================================================
Again you are jumping to totally unwarranted conclusions based on your complete lack of knowledge about me.
==============================================================

I'm basing this on previous discussions we have had. I have enough knowledge about what you believe to know that you think lust is okay, as long as you don't act on it. You think lyings okay, if you do it for the right reasons. You believe that you are sinless, but you have lied and acted hypocritically in these forums. Your religion innoculates you from any wrong doing, because the morality of your religion is plastic so that you are able to rationalize why whatever action you have taken is not a sin.

==============================================================
I disagree that the only reasonable way to discuss the Bible is to use the Bible.
==============================================================

As I said, I'm not surprised. To take a few scriptures and try to find a meaning outside of the Bible and then to claim that whatever conclusion you came to is the Biblical position...that's completely irrational. Irrational, but not surprising.

Abracadabra,

=============================================================
You seem to take extraordinary amounts of pleasure in calling me a liar. This is actually against the forum rules Spider. I have done no such thing.
=============================================================

=============================================================
This was indeed the main point of this thread and I’m glad to see that you do indeed agree on this point.
=============================================================

You falsely claimed that agreed with you that sins are in the context and are not absolutes. That's a lie, I didn't say that.

Spider wrote:
“I have asked you about your religion and morality in the past. At one point you said that your religion was about making you feel good and you questioned the validity of any religion which doesn't make you feel good.”

I think you’ve clearly misunderstood what I meant.

I said that God tells us what is right and wrong from within. We know when we feel good about something and when we don’t feel good about something from a spiritual perspective.

You seem to be implying that all I’m saying is that if it “feels good” then do it. Like in a physical sense of feeling good.

Obviously in a religion context I’m talking about feeling good about things spiritually.

Spider wrote:
“That's a comment on your religion. If that's against the forum rules, then I will accept whatever punishment Mike feels is appropriate. But to say that a comment about your religion is a personal insult? Then you insult every Christian here with frightening frequency.”

Speaking about a religion abstractly is not making a personal attack.

You didn’t speak about religion abstractly, you said “YOUR religion is self-serving and infantile”

You don’t even know what my religion is!

Spider wrote:
“I'm basing this on previous discussions we have had. I have enough knowledge about what you believe to know that you think lust is okay, as long as you don't act on it.”

Be careful now. We have seen that we often disagree on the meaning of words. What you mean by “lust’ and what I mean by ‘lust’ may be (and probably are) quite different.

In fact, I believe that you had stated once that lust is a desire to sin. And I would flatly reject that definition of the word. I believe that lust simply means to desire something, and therefore we can lust after good things.

Spider wrote:
“You think lyings okay, if you do it for the right reasons.”

Yes this is absolutely true. I hold that sin is indeed contextual and it not just an act. There are situations in which lying is a good thing.

Spider wrote:
“You believe that you are sinless, but you have lied and acted hypocritically in these forums.”

Again these are your false accusations and judgments that have absolutely nothing to do with truth.

This is just yet another insult against me by claiming that these things are true about me when, in fact, they are not.

Spider wrote:
“Your religion innoculates you from any wrong doing, because the morality of your religion is plastic so that you are able to rationalize why whatever action you have taken is not a sin.”

Again, just more misperceptions on your part.

Tell me. Why are you so obsessed with judging me?

I thought it was fairly well accepted by the vast majority of Christians that Judging others is wrong?

Spider wrote:
“You falsely claimed that agreed with you that sins are in the context and are not absolutes. That's a lie, I didn't say that.”

You said that “context is everything”.

I thought you meant that as a generality.

If that’s not what you meant I understand now.

No need to call me a liar for misunderstanding what you mean.

You misunderstand me all the time and I’m not calling you a liar.

Why are you so obsessed with calling me names and passing unwarranted judgments on me?

It is precisely this kind of judgmental behavior that Christianity often sparks in people.

You are clearly demonstrating one of the flaws of that religion that I feel needs to be addressed in a positive and constructive way.

Abracadabra,

You are really good. You could give lessons to Bill Clinton and that's saying something.