Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:57 am

My bet is that the author had children.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:30 am

bspride wrote:is it a bad thing?

Sometimes. If for instance we never invested time in medical research because ignorance was easier, most of us would've died now.

bspride · Post by **bspride** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:50 am

Coffee no those sins arent as bad. There are 2 sins mortal and venial sin. If you read they arent as bad as one another. Strife is a violent conflict so getting physical with a woman or something is a sin. Sexual impurity is masterbation and viewing porno and engaging in sex out of wedlock. And coffee of all those sins you list how many are considered by society beneficial to society?

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:59 am

luns101 wrote:For me, it changed my life from hanging out with people who liked to get into trouble to a person who likes to assist others. That's pretty relevant to society.

I agree 100% Luns but as we have discussed before, it was YOU who wanted to change and change YOU did.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:31 pm

Backglass wrote:
luns101 wrote:For me, it changed my life from hanging out with people who liked to get into trouble to a person who likes to assist others. That's pretty relevant to society.
I agree 100% Luns but as we have discussed before, it was YOU who wanted to change and change YOU did.

He's got a point, the most morally correct people are those who do altruistic deeds without expecting a reward. You do these but in hope of being sent to an afterlife after death. Which is mostly doing something because it will help you. If your character will allow it, there is no need for religion if you can help those in need without reward.

bspride · Post by **bspride** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:13 pm

so unriggable you admit that their is a heaven?

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:58 pm

I don't think he does, at least he didn't say anything to indicate that's what he believes.

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:59 pm

MeDeFe wrote:My bet is that the author had children.

Paul actually never married.

And coffeecream, yes sex outside of marriage is considered a sin of sexual impurity. I'm sure you've already heard the Christian belief on that. Most denominations expand that to include masturbation and looking at pornography.

daddy1gringo · Post by **daddy1gringo** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:39 pm

CoffeeCream wrote:Here's another thing to think about. Can it be true that gossiping about someone or disobeying your parents is really as bad as murder? I know lots of people that disobey their parents. I don't think that's as bad as murdering someone though. I hope you don't think I'm justifying disrespect towards a parent, it's just hard to stomach some of these things being as bad as others.

They're the same in one way and different in another. From an eternal point of view, they're all the same. The Bible's definition of sin is "For him who knows what is right and fails to do it, for him it is sin." This may sound strange, but no thing is sin in itself. The sin is in the deciding "I know that you want me to do this, God, but mind your own business, I'm going to do that instead."

The difference is in how much damage they do here, to yourself and others. The more serious things, like murder, obviously do more damage to another person than, say, gossip, and you have to screw yourself up more inside to make the choice to do them.

God is not a rule book; he is a person, and he's all about relationship. Contrary to the popular misconception, as a Christian I do not walk around constantly worrying,"Is this a sin, is that a sin?" (actually, sometimes I still do, but the more I grow closer to God, the less I do.) It's all about relationship with him. When I choose to do what he loves, I'm inviting him into areas of my life and my heart. When I choose to do what he hates, I'm keeping him out of some. As I grow, I think less and less about sin (my sin is all forgiven and washed away by what Jesus did on the cross). I think more about how to make my friend happy by doing what he loves.

luns101 · Post by **luns101** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:58 pm

Backglass wrote:
luns101 wrote:For me, it changed my life from hanging out with people who liked to get into trouble to a person who likes to assist others. That's pretty relevant to society.
I agree 100% Luns but as we have discussed before, it was YOU who wanted to change and change YOU did.

My good buddy Leatnic and I discussed this since he was home for the weekend from Phoenix. (He travels back and forth to California since he works for Wells Fargo over in Phoenix but has a house in La Jolla).

It's funny because I mentioned you to him, Backglass. He is also an atheist. He basically told me the same thing.

To be honest, Backglass...I can see why you would say that about me. However, I can tell you that my own heart was pretty dark and filled with anger. Nothing that this world offered me through education, philosophy, counseling, etc. was able to produce that change in my life. I know for a fact that my life was changed supernaturally. I don't expect you to believe it, but I know from trying to change on my own that it was pointless. I was changed by God...not through my own efforts.

daddy1gringo · Post by **daddy1gringo** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:18 am

vtmarik wrote:Quite possibly it would be something simple. Controlled environment, lab conditions, a tester in the room, across from an empty glass jar.

...

Would that convince Backglass, more than likely. by "Show yourself" he most likely means "prove your existence" not necessarily "Pop around and chat with me"

OK, you said you thought this would convince Backglass, since he's the one I actually asked the question. So let me clarify; are you saying this would also convince you of God's existence? Or would you have something else in mind for yourself?

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:05 am

Backglass has also answered that question btw.

daddy1gringo · Post by **daddy1gringo** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:21 am

MeDeFe wrote:Backglass has also answered that question btw.

Yeah, I got that, thanks, but since VT put in a scenario, I figured I'd clarify about it.

CoffeeCream · Post by **CoffeeCream** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:38 pm

daddy1gringo wrote:They're the same in one way and different in another. From an eternal point of view, they're all the same. The Bible's definition of sin is "For him who knows what is right and fails to do it, for him it is sin." This may sound strange, but no thing is sin in itself. The sin is in the deciding "I know that you want me to do this, God, but mind your own business, I'm going to do that instead."

So if I'm understanding you correctly then every sin is disobedience against God on some level. Is this correct?

bspride wrote:Coffee no those sins arent as bad. There are 2 sins mortal and venial sin. If you read they arent as bad as one another. Strife is a violent conflict so getting physical with a woman or something is a sin. Sexual impurity is masterbation and viewing porno and engaging in sex out of wedlock. And coffee of all those sins you list how many are considered by society beneficial to society?

Neither one of those links worked but I'll look up the definitions to see what you're talking about.

luns101 wrote:Nothing that this world offered me through education, philosophy, counseling, etc. was able to produce that change in my life. I know for a fact that my life was changed supernaturally. I don't expect you to believe it, but I know from trying to change on my own that it was pointless. I was changed by God...not through my own efforts.

This is what I'm talking about. I've talked to people who say they were in trouble with the law, but then they somehow "found" Jesus. They almost never explain to me what they mean by that, but I can see the change in how they act towards other people. How does someone accomplish this?

Still, nobody has answered my question about how someone commits the sin of Strife. Any Christians out there want to tackle this one?

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:41 pm

CoffeeCream wrote:
bspride wrote:Coffee no those sins arent as bad. There are 2 sins mortal and venial sin. If you read they arent as bad as one another. Strife is a violent conflict so getting physical with a woman or something is a sin. Sexual impurity is masterbation and viewing porno and engaging in sex out of wedlock. And coffee of all those sins you list how many are considered by society beneficial to society?
Neither one of those links worked but I'll look up the definitions to see what you're talking about.

Fixed

CrazyAnglican · Post by **CrazyAnglican** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:20 pm

Thanks bspride and unriggable. I'd never known the denotations of those two terms before. I'm not sure if they are considered part of the protestant churches. More often than not I just here the term sin, with no distinction, as Coffeecream had said.

suggs · Post by **suggs** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:30 pm

can we agree that all religion is BOLLOCKS?
Good.

Jehan · Post by **Jehan** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:26 pm

CoffeeCream wrote: Still, nobody has answered my question about how someone commits the sin of Strife. Any Christians out there want to tackle this one?

ok this might be a poor explanation, i think the context he's talking about it in is one where certain people would argue about the meanings of words and other things within the church, in order to stir up conflict within the church, and its that kind of attitude, causing conflict which i think he is talking about.

bspride · Post by **bspride** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:10 pm

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3041.htm
Thats the best i can do on strife question.

b.k. barunt · Post by **b.k. barunt** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:48 pm

You could substitute "war" for "strife", and maybe then you could grasp what the meaning of the text is.

CrazyAnglican · Post by **CrazyAnglican** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:00 pm

Hi Coffecream,

You've certainly got some indepth questions. As usual with anything I post, if it helps great if not disregard it in favor of the words of others. I will say that this time I had to go back to reread the scripture and see what I could make of your questions based on my own study.

CoffeeCream wrote:I've been away for awhile working but also reading. The Bible certainly is a lot different than what I've been told. So I'm reading in Romans now as well. A friend told me that Romans is like the Constitution of the Bible. I have to say that the first chapter disturbed me very much. In Romans it condems just about everything.

I'm not sure I understand your friend's simile comparing Romans to the Constitution. I'll have to reread with that in mind to truly evaluate the idea for myself. I would say that the New Testamant isn't as focused on laws as the Old Testament. I'd have assumed that the Books of Laws (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) would also vie for this title. There certainly is law in Paul's writing, but I see it more as an attempt on Paul's part, to address the needs of the various early Christian congregations instead of an overall set of laws. These letters do contain a great deal of wisdom in terms of leading a Christian life.

CoffeeCream wrote:These are the things I found in just Romans 1 that are condemned:

Idol worship, sexual impurity, worshipping creatures instead of God, homosexual behavior, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossiping, slandering, hating God, insolence, being arrogant and boastful, and being disobedient to your parents. That's quite a list.

These are certainly not desireable qualities, according to the Bible, but this isn't the first time in the Bible most of them are specifically denounced. So, I don't think Paul is breaking new ground or laying down the law for us.

CoffeeCream wrote:So Jesus Freaks most of these I understand because they're easy. How would you define sexual impurity though? Would it be committing adultery or just having sex without being married? I was thinking it's people who engage in things you would only see on some weird porno site. Also, how would you define strife? How does someone commit the sin of strife?

As I understand it sexual impurity is any sexual activity that is outside of a monogymous relationship. Whether marriage (or even differing genders) are necessary is up to interpretation. Paul goes on later to state that "love covers a multitude of sins". I certainly think there are worse things people can do than love each other.

Now to the actual point

. I do not think Paul is condemning all of these things in this passage. Instead he appears to be using them as examples of immorality, (perhaps these were common in Rome). He has made the point that no one can claim ignorance of God because his creations are everywhere, but that some willfully deny him and applaud others who do the same. When he speaks fo God's wrath this is what he seems to focus on. The other vices are used to show to what depths we can sink. I do not see a list of crimes to be condemned here, largely because there is no prescribed punishment for them (only that they will eventually incur God's wrath). I think this also part of your objection to disobediance and gossip being in the same list a murder and adultry. If it is just a list of representative immoral behaviors, then this is not truly an organized list of sins to be singled out as heinous.

Strife, as others have stated, is contentious behavior. I'm guilty of it as are many others. Paul writes in other letters though that Christians are to "walk in light" that is not to be enslaved by their sinful desires. I think that strife in this case is the inner conflict between conscience and sinful drives. Paul sees us as being no longer subject to sin (Yes, we do still sin) in that now Christ dwells in us and the Holy Spirit aids us in resisting temptations. I'm probably way off base from the question you asked, but hopefully there was something in there that was worthwhile.

CoffeeCream wrote:Here's another thing to think about. Can it be true that gossiping about someone or disobeying your parents is really as bad as murder? I know lots of people that disobey their parents. I don't think that's as bad as murdering someone though. I hope you don't think I'm justifying disrespect towards a parent, it's just hard to stomach some of these things being as bad as others.

Instead of thinking in the court system model (ie. sins are crimes which deserve varying levels of punishment and God is the judge that meets out those punishments) it might be more helpful to think in terms of a relationship with God. I don't deny that some sins are more hurtful than others, but as far as your relationship with God every sin is saying "God, I don't care what you want for me. I'm going to do this right in front of you" so in this case even small sins are a danger. Think about how many marriages end because of all of the "little things". Sometimes one huge sin horrifies the perpertrator and induces repentance and a positive change, while a daily habit of seeking to anger or insult others may have a more lasting negative effect. When a choice to sin becomes a habit of sin then there is the beginning of a real problem.

The beginning of Romans 2 is important as well. It begins with an admonition not to judge others because everyone may be subject to the same sins. (I read it as "don't get on your high horse Anglican, I know you too well").

daddy1gringo · Post by **daddy1gringo** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:16 am

suggs wrote:can we agree that all religion is BOLLOCKS?
Good.

While everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion, I think you're in the wrong thread.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:56 pm

daddy1gringo wrote:OK, you said you thought this would convince Backglass, since he's the one I actually asked the question. So let me clarify; are you saying this would also convince you of God's existence? Or would you have something else in mind for yourself?

Allow me to repeat myself:

I am not an atheist. I believe in God. I don't believe the Bible is God's word, nor do I believe in Jesus' divinity. I believe he was an illusionist who used his powers of prestidigitation to convince people that he had the right idea (which he did).

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:21 pm

daddy1gringo wrote:
vtmarik wrote:Quite possibly it would be something simple. Controlled environment, lab conditions, a tester in the room, across from an empty glass jar.

...

Would that convince Backglass, more than likely. by "Show yourself" he most likely means "prove your existence" not necessarily "Pop around and chat with me"
OK, you said you thought this would convince Backglass, since he's the one I actually asked the question. So let me clarify; are you saying this would also convince you of God's existence? Or would you have something else in mind for yourself?

I don't think that would really convince me of God's existence. I think the best proof was if God breaks a natural law (gravity for instance) and the world doesn't suffer any consequence of it. (Ofcourse the break should be in a small area or something, don't want people to die...though on second thought I assume god could fix that too.)

edwinissweet · Post by **edwinissweet** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:44 pm

thios might of been answered but i dont feel like readin 40 pages to find out. so someone please take a look at my question

Gd is perfect right? and god is everything right? so if god is everything that means he is sin aswell. sin is evil thus making god evil thus making him not perfect?