14 Jun 07
Originally posted by zablocI agree that your actions can define who you are as a person. Actions you do may not have a negative impact on those around you but they may have an impact on you as a person. I hope I implied that in my ubove post.
Gday Jake Ellison, just thought I'd offer you another perspective on a few of the sins you mentioned. First of all, I agree with you that "checking out" a girl is not neccessarily wrong. In fact, I think that in today's western society where there are very few arranged marriages it is imperative that we "check out" people to consider as partners. Yes, Jesus s ...[text shortened]... ief in a caring and creator god is important in justifying it as being wrong.
I agree that things that don't hurt people arn't always necessarily right. I was speaking generally. I believe that the impact on others is a good starting point for moral desicions. For example I don't think sex before marriage is wrong. But I wouldn't personally do it unless I was in a loving realtionship. However I don't judge people who have one night stands, as long as both people know emotionally what to expect. I just don't follow the 'God says so' argument. It seems to much of a cop out from any logical reasoning. Remember that I can't help what I believe and couldn't force myself to (even if I wanted to).
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by Jake EllisonEarlier you said, "I don't consider myself to be sinning." Now you're admitting to sinning. Can you see why I might think you're confused on the issue?
I'm not confused about sins I admit to sinning. I know that I've done wrong in the past and I've tried to make amends. I don't believe that you could claim never to have sinned. I don't think 'checking out girls is wrong, I think treating girls as objects is wrong. I can think 'wow shes hot' without staring at her breast and paying no attention to her ...[text shortened]... asn't being totally serious when I said that heaven would be boring without sin.
And, if you had read my first post in the thread more carefully (or my forum posting history outside this thread), you might find that I'm not being entirely serious, either.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitFair enough, I wasn't clear. What I said was:
Earlier you said, "I don't consider myself to be sinning." Now you're admitting to sinning. Can you see why I might think you're confused on the issue?
And, if you had read my first post in the thread more carefully (or my forum posting history outside this thread), you might find that I'm not being entirely serious, either.
'Obviously I would consider crimes such as stealing or murder to be wrong, but I also know a lot of Christians believe some things to be morally wrong, that I would disagree with. I don't consider myself to be sinning.'
Obviously I don't apply the statement 'I dont consider myself to be sinning' to every situation. I disagree with some Christian teaching, such as sex before marriage, and in those cases I wouldn't consider myself to be sinning.
But don't worry. I'm not all bad. I really want to lead my live as best I can. I have morals which probably differ from yours, but we all believe what we believe. I think I can defend my position.
(Glad to hear your not being entirely serious either!)
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitSorry if you think I am just picking on christians, I also loath Islam, Scientology, Jehovahs witnesses, mormons and others of their ilk.
That was weird. You started out actually trying to answer my question, but then, in the middle of your first sentence, you just went off on your usual anti-Christian rant. You must really like the sound of your own voice.
All based on building a power base and subjugating women. I guess maybe in that regard scientology is more advanced than the others, mainly I think because they will take ANYONE's money.
15 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo... I don't think that every time you look at another girls posterior you should tell your wife. Nevertheless, I think that ideally in a marriage, both people should be perfectly content emotionally and sexually. Of course, we aren't living in an ideal world. I'm sure that many married men still look at other "girls posteriors"... All I was saying is that if you are "unfaithful" in your head, you have to deal with it one way or another and both are likely to have some negative consequences.
So, in your opinion, every time I look at a girls posterior after I get married, I should tell my wife, right?
Sucks being single, doesn't it?
About being single... I guess if you're worried about getting hurt, then being single is ok, but then again... what could be better than having a friend that you can and would like to share everything with.
15 Jun 07
Originally posted by zablocachhhh, ya didn't get the implied joke....
No... I don't think that every time you look at another girls posterior you should tell your wife. Nevertheless, I think that ideally in a marriage, both people should be perfectly content emotionally and sexually. Of course, we aren't living in an ideal world. I'm sure that many married men still look at other "girls posteriors"... All I was saying is that i ...[text shortened]... uld be better than having a friend that you can and would like to share everything with.
15 Jun 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitBut now you are faced with the necessity of proving the heaven exists. Something you cannot empirically do. All you have there is opinion, whether yours or someone else's in the form of the bible.
The part that made it a game was the prize of eternal heaven for some of the players.
15 Jun 07
The only one thing a religous person can sy with any conviction is that we can't explain the origin of the universe. You may be content to say that its something science will explain in the future. You may say God did it. But in terms of the nature of God it all comes down to faith. How can you say 'God' cares about human life? How can you say that 'God' is even a scentient being? 'God' just becomes a first cause if we say that everything in the universe requires a cause, and therefore there must be something outside of the universe which is not subject to the fundamental law of causality which exists in this universe. 'God' then becomes a misleading term. Really God as we would understand the term is just wishful thinking. Prehaps the fundamental cause of the universe was meerly energy, prehaps energy is a constant which never had to be created at all.
As for heaven, its another one of those religion things invented by humans. There is no reason for its existance and no evidence. Its conception can be explained by human nature. Simply, we fear death and unknowing, and couldn't face the idea of oblivion. We hate the idea that good and bad people are going to the same place, we no reward and punishment.
15 Jun 07
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd one of the natural questions arising from this topic is, "Why can't people commit crimes in heaven, when they can on earth?" I've been exploring that question. He went off-topic by questioning God's existence. This thread assumes the existence of heaven.
Er, the topic was 'can you commit crimes in heaven' if you hadn't noticed. You are the one deflecting the post.
You should stick to science posts in the puzzles forum. You sound semi-retarded when you try to argue religion.
16 Jun 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitOh, hurt to the quick. How charming. I am not t he one resorting to ad homim attacks. So nobody answered the statement that if lucifer was kicked out of heaven for sinning, then why cannot people do the same?
And one of the natural questions arising from this topic is, "Why can't people commit crimes in heaven, when they can on earth?" I've been exploring that question. He went off-topic by questioning God's existence. This thread assumes the existence of heaven.
You should stick to science posts in the puzzles forum. You sound semi-retarded when you try to argue religion.