Spider wrote:
“Arrogant? To make an observation?”

You can’t even apologize when you directly attack someone’s spiritual motivation. Instead you just continue on to justify your uncouth attack as though it held some kind of “truth” by calling it an ‘observation’?

This is pathetic behavior Spider. The epitome of arrogance.

Spider wrote:
“People tend to get attached to their beliefs, sorry if this generalization offended you.”

And if they don’t believe like YOU then their heart isn’t in it?

Do you have a real name Spider? Mine is James. I’m a real person, with a heart and spirit.

Are you?

Yep, that's what they teach.

I'm just questioning whether they got it right.

I personally don't believe that they did.

BOTH
there is no separation

But then how do we account for the fact that sex is a sin outside of marriage, but not within?

There's obviously a distinction between an act and the context in which the act is being performed.

dude at least say hello, miguel.
nice to see you after a long time, and then kick in the questions.

You see, I've been taught my whole life in catholic school (13 years), that if I had sex before marriage I would go to hell.

I think the sin is when a person has sex as a hobbie or sport.
However, if you have sex with somebody before marriage, and you are committed to that person, and you love that person there is no sin therein.
The sin comes when i have sex with the sole purpose to satisfy a bodily need. And not to share love with somebody.

Miguel

Abracadabra wrote...


I apologize for offending you. I suppose I allowed the way my own heart and mind works to influence my observations. I still find it interesting that you would be able to give up every belief you hold dear, I guess that makes you a truely unique person.



If you had read any of my emails, you would know my name. And before you decide to lecture me about what I just posted, perhaps you owe me an apology for things you posted not so long ago about me?

I just missed u both of u a lot.

Hello Miquel!!!

Missed ya bro!!

hey my friend how r u?

Yes, welcome back. Where have you been? And a great day to come back, we have new toys.

Good, and you?

I've been working hard. New job in a law firm.
And one more month to go before graduation.
Everything is just going to fast now.
But I like the thrill

The sin is in having sex outside of marriage, not having sex.

Like I pointed out earlier, you are saying it is either the act or the intent, but then you define the act so generally. The sin in having sex outside of marriage is that fact that that having sex outside of marriage is a sin.

I don’t hold any unsupported ‘beliefs’ so I have no clue what you are talking about. Your implications about me simply show that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when it comes to assessing my personal motivations and ideals.

Perhaps if you would take those self-proclaimed blinders off maybe you could see more of the world around you with better clarity.

You aren’t supposed to be assessing other people’s motivations and sincerity anyway. So why you are even making personal accusations is totally beyond me. As far as apologies go, I certainly don’t feel that I owe you one for blocking you. You have been extremely rude and arrogant in the past and thus the reason you have been blocked. You don’t appear to by anymore civil on the public forums either. You’re still making direct personal accusations and judgments about other people on a PERSONAL LEVEL.



So all you are doing is including the intent to be part of the 'act'.

I see no difference at all.

I still hold that all sin is contextual and I have seen nothing in anything that you have suggested that merits changing that view.

Abracadabra wrote...


Ummm, that's not what I was talking about. You were posting very insulting and hurtful things about me and refused to stop posting those comments. I'm glad that you finally stopped posting those comments, but you haven't apologized.

This is the last I have to say on that subject. I apologized for the statement I made earlier. If my apology isn't good enough for you, then so be it.

Fair enough Spider.

I accept your apology and if I have hurt you in the past then I apologize for that as well.

Let's try to move forward and refrain from personal attacks in either direction.

On a practical note I do have a question about what you said,...



Why should a person need to give up science in order to believe in God?

What does science mean to you? You seem to view science as some sort of collective cult that is in cahoots to try to pull the wool over the eyes of humanity.

I’ve been involved with science far too long to believe any such thing. Scientists are the most skeptical of all people. Nothing would please any scientist more than to be able to disprove something that science already believes to be true! To do such a thing would bring a person great fame and fortune.

Science is all about being skeptical and holding open every possibility. Don’t think for one second that scientists haven’t sincerely tried to incorporate religious views into their explanations of observations. The truth of the matter is that no one has ever been able to do that in a convincing way.

Science is the study of God’s creation.

This is what science is.

Why should anyone need to forfeit what they actually observe to be truth in nature in order to believe in a religious view?

Can you seriously answer me that?

Why would God “pull the wool” over our eyes and expect us to believe in an ancient book that was written about a particular geographical region on earth (i.e. the Middle East) in favor of what we actually observe to be happening in reality?

What is the MOTIVATION for choosing to reject reality in favor of unconfirmed and improvable stories that defy common sense and rational (or reasonable) thinking?

Especially considering that we know that very similar stories were told by the ancient Greeks, and the Vikings, etc, etc, etc, around the same historical period.

There is nothing unique about the Bible that suggests that we should believe it over any other source of spiritual information.

Yet you keep suggesting that we should put blinders on to all other sources of information (including observing the real world we live in!)

What is your justification for such a suggestion?

Why should we limit our view to only one ancient religous doctrine, and reject what we actually see happening before our very eyes?

Can you answer me that?

Abracadabra,



They shouldn't need to give up science, they just need to let go of junk science. But that's beside the point. My point was that your world view differs greatly from mine, correct? But not so long ago, we had a great deal in common. A very wise woman told me that she had so many questions that kept her from God, she finally had to say "I'll accept everything in the Bible as the truth, like it or not" before she was actually saved. I idolized Robert Bakker, Evolution was a given. It was VERY difficult for me to think "Maybe Evolution didn't happen". But it wasn't until I gave up on all preconceived notions of religion and the origins of life that I was saved. Maybe Evolution DID happen and God wanted me to give up my love for palentology as a test. I have no idea, but my life has just gotten better with every day and I don't look back.

Wow.... I just got back from Jamaica.... so I only skimmed some of the posts I'm afraid... it's a lot of "sin" for one night...

As many of you know I do not believe in the concept of "sin" as it is generally portrayed... I only believe in doing our best to not harm one another...

I don't see the harm from consenual physical intimacy between adults, except possibly in the case of adultery or cheating.

And so, happily for me, I don't have to have as much restraint as so many of you seem to be required by your beliefs to have...

I can just go crazy....

be as wild as I want to be...

give in to my desires....








And have as many chocolate chips as I want....

Spider wrote:
"They shouldn't need to give up science, they just need to let go of junk science."

Well, I'm sure we'd draw the line there in quite different places.

You seem to be hung-up on evolution.

I can assure you that my understanding of evolution has absolutely no affect on my belief in the Bible.

As I've stated many times. It appears perfectly clear to me that most of the Bible is allegories anyway, so the account of how God created Adam and Eve is most probably allegorical too.

My understanding of how evolutions works doesn’t cause me to become an atheist.

You are the one who seems to have a problem with evolution being compatible with the Bible and therefore you reject evolution.

I have absolutely no problem believing that God created us from lower creatures through evolution. This does not bother me in the least.

I think what you have made a terrible mistake about is your misunderstanding of my stance on evolution.

I’m NOT saying that evolution disproves the Bible. I have never said any such thing!

All I’ve ever said is that the Bible doesn’t DISPROVE evolution!

There’s a WORLD of difference here.

When I argue against religious people denouncing evolution I’m not arguing that evolution denounces the Bible. I’m simply arguing that it is not necessary to denounce evolution to believe in the Bible!

Unless of course a person is trying to take everything literally and verbatim (which I also oppose)

For example, as far as I’m concerned the Great Flood in the Bible is an allegory. It never happened. That wasn’t the point of the story!

The point of the story was allegorical. It simply meant that we should always hold out hope that no matter how evil the world becomes we can always find grace in God.

So I would say that you have completely misread me. My understanding of science in no way prevents me from believing in the Bible.

My major reasons for not believing in the Bible are contained in the Bible’s own self-contradictions and unanswered questions. There are just too many “have your cake and eat it too” ideals in the Bible.

God is all-powerful, but not.

God is all-compassionate, but not.

God is all-knowing, but not,

Jesus is God, but not.

The list just goes on and on and on ad infinitum.

I don’t use science to dismiss the Bible. The Bible dismisses itself.

I merely argue against people who want to use the Bible to dismiss science!

That’s a whole differnet ballgame!

I think you have it backwards my friend.

If your life has gotten better I'm glad for you.

If my life were to get any better I'd be in heaven.

Wrong.



Wrong.



Wrong.



Wrong.

You aren't exactly batting 1000 here.