Why isnt isnt it ok to sin?

[lori milne]

Sexual desire isn't sinful. The objectification of another human being, however, robs them of their dignity and the good and just treatment that is to be given them as people. When I see a beautiful woman and my body's ordinary functions activate isn't a sin. But it is absolutely unacceptable for me to look at a woman as nothing more than a walking pair of breasts and thus dehumanize her. Even if it's only in my own mind. -CryptoLutheran

Lusting with your eyes is equal to committing the sin there for it is sex out side of marriage and is a sin according to 1 of the 10 commandments and Jesus Christ him self .

 

[lori milne]

Unless your basing this off of your feeling of what sin should be? And In that case is totally not relevant to Any Christian forum. I don't know cause I can't assume I'm just guessing where your view point is coming from, It doesn't sound biblically based?
No disrespect btw

 

[Paradoxum]

Umm. This was your example. I just answered it. You gave an example and you don't know how it relates to what we're discussing?

You gave the specific example I was replying to. It's extremely disingenuous to act like you don't know that. It seems like purposeful dishonesty.

Unless you don't understand that I was replying to a specific example you made up?

We were talking about the harm sin causes. Morality was not the issue. Losing track already?

Well, again, we're talking about social strictures, not morals. Regardless, didn't I just say my views have no affect on you? That may or may not be a problem.

So sin isn't immoral to you? So why should anyone care what sin is? Isn't it an irrelevant concept?

Yes. So now I can reply to "narrow and self-centered." You didn't even mention consideration for whether sex benefits your partner. It was just, "Me." It is obvious that is all you consider ... despite what you may say to the contrary. Narrow and self-centered, i.e. your idea of benefit/harm only considers what benefits/harms you.

I that's quite unfair, though I see why you thinks it's okay to jump on me for it.

Consider if you asked me, "Why do you want to play tennis, since you just said you're tired and your feet ache."

And I reply, "Because I think the benefits to me are greater than than the negatives"

Are you going to jump on me, saying that I'm self-centered for not mentioning the other participate? I doubt it. I was assuming that the question was about my own psychology of why I want something.

Anyway, if they consent, what is there to consider in regards to the other person? In what way would it be self-centered to accept their consent?

For example, you can't imagine why pre-marital sex would cause harm. But in fact, the list is rather long. Pre-marital sex means uncommitted sex. Maybe you'll object with something about how you don't need a piece of paper to establish commitment, but I disagree. "I and this guy are committed even though we never really talked about it and he or I can leave whenever we want and there's nothing to hold him responsible if this goes bad or if I need help. I mean, we did the pinky swear."

Well I see nothing wrong with uncommitted sex, but I don't think non-marital sex is necessarily uncommitted. You can be willing to be together until death without marriage. What makes that not commitment?

I'd also say that a monogamous relationship, but no 'until death' commitment, is still a commitment. You might not call that commitment, but whatever you call it, I consider it of worth something.

Also, I think unforced long term monogamy shows more commitment than if responsibility is forced by contract. If the only reason someone stays is because of a contract, is that really commitment? I'd say that's sad state to be in.

Uncommitted sex means it's possible he has had many partners - many he may not tell you about - which increases the risk of disease. Then there is the people who will be hurt by pretending there is commitment when there isn't (or pretending commitment doesn't matter). There is the possibility of pregnancy. The list goes on for how this could cause harm ... harm to people other than you.

Sure, and it's the other person's choice if they want to risk those things. If they consent, what's the problem?

That said, it's not as if I'd purposely give someone an STD (not that I have one). So clearly I do consider the other person, when it's relevant.

Maybe that matters to me. Maybe it doesn't. Putting aside the simple fact I don't like people to get hurt, the question is whether you live in my society. If you're not going to expect police protection from overbearing boyfriends, health care for venereal disease, child support for pregnancy, etc. If you don't expect any of those things, then, yes, there is no reason for me to put social strictures on you. But if you expect those things - things that have a cost to me, I have a right to minimize the impact on me, and that means restricting your behavior.

You can have abusive relationships without sex (and in marriage), I'd expect my taxes to pay for my healthcare anyway, and I'd have an abortion.

So how does it affect you?

You don't live in this world alone, so "Me" is not an acceptable answer.

It's perfectly acceptable. This matter doesn't affect others in any significant way, and those it does affect consent.

Even if it did, that's what happens when living in a free society. Religious freedom affects me (because religious people vote), but I don't complain about religious freedom existing.

Sometimes people pay for freedom, and some people lose more than money because of religious freedom.
------------

So, going back to me being a bad person; do you still think I'm self-centered? If there were some relevant harm (like STD and they didn't know) I'd consider the other person. What is self-centered about that approach?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sexual desire isn't sinful.

The objectification of another human being, however, robs them of their dignity and the good and just treatment that is to be given them as people.

When I see a beautiful woman and my body's ordinary functions activate isn't a sin. But it is absolutely unacceptable for me to look at a woman as nothing more than a walking pair of breasts and thus dehumanize her. Even if it's only in my own mind.

-CryptoLutheran

Job 31:11-12New Living Translation (NLT)

11[bless and do not curse]For lust is a shameful sin,
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]a crime that should be punished.
12[bless and do not curse]It is a fire that burns all the way to hell.[a]
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]It would wipe out everything I own.

For the record, "lustful thoughts" doesn't necessarily refer to sexual thoughts... but we can use that meaning if it simplifies the conversation a bit ....

It certainly appears that lustful thoughts are indeed a sin...I understand that you may not think so....but certainly you understand that a great many christians do consider it a sin. I think even if the bible didn't say it were a sin, a great many christians would still think it a sin for no other reason than it falls short of the glory of god, so with that in mind....

Does this sin cause anyone harm? If so...whom does it harm? How does it harm them?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure I understand.

Unhealthy eating habits aren't sinful. I simply don't know of any way to argue on the contrary.

Gluttony--excessive over-indulgence--is sinful; but a diet consisting primarily of processed foods and other various forms of junk food is not sinful. It's not healthy, it's not smart, but it's not sinful.

I'm not disparaging your message, but it seemed to me you came close to saying: If you can handle it, it's not a sin. If I can handle the alcohol, the sex, the junk food then it's not sinful. Well, that's what all addicts say: I can handle it. That is a wrong attitude.

It also seemed you were saying a little bit of bad isn't bad. That is also wrong. If it's bad, it's bad. A little bit of bad is still bad. There is no sense in which a little bit of bad is good.

What we're talking about is an "all things in moderation" viewpoint. I would say a little bit of pizza (or Cheetos, or whatever processed food you're talking about) is not bad - and therefore not sinful. However, living off a diet of pizza, Cheetos, and Pepsi when you have other choices - willfully choosing what you know is harmful - that is sinful.

So, I would agree with you. Drinking alcohol is not innately sinful. Eating some pizza is fine. But "I can handle it" is the wrong attitude. "A little bit of bad is OK" is the wrong attitude.

The problem is many of the people you're talking with here will either take your answer in a Pharisaical or hedonistic direction. Calling a singular action sinful will be taken as calling the person evil. Calling a singular action permissible will be taken as free license. You and I know it's neither of those - that it's not about works righteousness.

So, all I was trying to say was: careful, I think you're going to be misinterpreted. But I've also been known to be wrong, so carry on.

 

[Resha Caner]

You gave the specific example I was replying to. It's extremely disingenuous to act like you don't know that. It seems like purposeful dishonesty.

Don't try to turn this around on me. You asked me if it was wrong to break your own personal property. I responded to your question.

So sin isn't immoral to you? So why should anyone care what sin is? Isn't it an irrelevant concept?

Of course I think sin is immoral. But that's not how this started. We were talking about harm, not immorality.

Anyway, if they consent, what is there to consider in regards to the other person? In what way would it be self-centered to accept their consent?

You appear as if you're trying to avoid all responsibility. If they consent, then you're not responsible for what happens. So likewise all a guy has to do is get the girl to say, "Yes." It doesn't matter how he gets that yes.

Do you bear any responsibility for your partner?

Well I see nothing wrong with uncommitted sex, but I don't think non-marital sex is necessarily uncommitted. You can be willing to be together until death without marriage. What makes that not commitment?

I'm well aware of your hedonistic attitude. And, even though I find it laughable, I'm also aware of what you consider commitment. But I'll ask a few questions anyway: 1) Is someone committed if they feel they can break the agreement any time they please for whatever reason they please? 2) Is someone committed if they only say it to you, and won't tell anyone else they're committed?

Also, I think unforced long term monogamy shows more commitment than if responsibility is forced by contract. If the only reason someone stays is because of a contract, is that really commitment? I'd say that's sad state to be in.

That's a great idea. Let's get rid of all contracts.

You can have abusive relationships without sex (and in marriage), I'd expect my taxes to pay for my healthcare anyway, and I'd have an abortion.

So how does it affect you?

Really? Do you understand how taxes work? The tax you pay is not enough to cover your healthcare. It's a numbers game. If it costs $100 for a particular medicine, and 10% of the population is going to get the disease, then you tax everybody $10. So, I'm paying $10 to cure your disease - that's how it affects me ... or to pay for the policeman who protects you from a string of abusive relationships, or to pay for the detox center because you can't handle your alcohol, or to pay for the foster care (or God forbid the abortion) that results from your pregnancy.

That's $10 I don't have to put toward the transportation I need to get to work, or new clothes for my wife, or supplies for my kids' school. However, if I can prevent your risky behavior I leave you a healthier person and I save $10. If you were just a little bit grateful toward the community you live in I would gladly pay the $10, but we've had this discussion before and you've already demonstrated that you have no idea how a community functions.

What you do affects other people. Unless you separate from society, you are obligated to that society. Until you are completely self-sufficient, freedom is not carte blanche.

So, going back to me being a bad person; do you still think I'm self-centered? If there were some relevant harm (like STD and they didn't know) I'd consider the other person. What is self-centered about that approach?

My opinion of you hasn't changed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

double post

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is a very clear passage about your body being the temple.
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. ([bless and do not curse]

1 Corinthians‬ [bless and do not curse]3‬:[bless and do not curse]16-18‬ KJV)

Try reading 1 Corinthians 3 again, and I mean the entire chapter:

"And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations? For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?

What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each. For we are God’s servants, working together; you are God’s field, God’s building.

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.
Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

Do not deceive yourselves. If you think that you are wise in this age, you should become fools so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written,

“He catches the wise in their craftiness,”

and again,

“The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise,
that they are futile.”

So let no one boast about human leaders. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God."

Under normal circumstances I might not copy-and-paste an entire chapter of text, but really the only way to understand what is being said in verse 16-18 (which I put in bold above) is to have at least some idea about what Paul's talking about.

Paul is talking about the community, the Church. The harm done against God's temple--the Christian Church--is the issue the apostle is addressing.

If you are looking for the "your body is a temple" passage, it's in 1 Corinthians ch. 6, vs 12-20,

"“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for prostitution but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.” But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun prostitution! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the one who partakes of prostitution sins against the body itself. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body."

In several cases the NRSV has rendered the Greek word porneia (prostitution) as the familiar though archaic "fornication"; for the sake of making my point I've re-rendered "fornication" as "prostitution" and "fornicator" as "one who partakes of prostitution".

To that end it is essential to understand the sacred prostitution trade that existed in Corinth; in Corinth there existed from ancient times a temple dedicated to Aphrodite, and ancient historians (such as Strabo) how the priestesses of Aphrodite offered their services as part of the rites offered to the goddess.

To engage sexually with a temple prostitute was not merely an act of sexual indiscretion, it was to partake in the religious rites offered to another deity, and that is why St. Paul makes such a big deal about it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with smoking, drinking, or tattoos; and everything to do with engaging in what ultimately amounts to idolatry.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pittsflyer]

Most churches definition of sin is not biblically based and when they call you out and you show them they are just quite but their opinion is not changed. Dogma is so entrenched that looking at scripture in any other way than what the church tells you just gets you shunned.

I have even read articles that will admit that no where in the bible does it requie a piece of paper a ring or vows but then they will go on this convoluded diatribe to defend it anyways. It is entrenched legalism.

Unless your basing this off of your feeling of what sin should be? And In that case is totally not relevant to Any Christian forum. I don't know cause I can't assume I'm just guessing where your view point is coming from, It doesn't sound biblically based?
No disrespect btw

 

[pittsflyer]

The problem with that is ashrae poles and temple prostitutes dont exist anymore so the churchs need something to guilt trip people with. Almost no one murders on a day to day basis in a church, sure there might be an adultry scandle every 5 years or so but they need more than that to keep people feeling guilty.

What is the perfect thing, 2 people living and sleeping together that have not been endorced by the state, thats like everyone, now the chuch can create a crusade. Make men the bad guys because of course you cant hold women accountable in church and definitly not in family law courts.

They start deviating so far from God that they become irrelavent. As soon as the family law courts started castrating men (metaphorically) the churchs should have started offering alternatives to legal marriage. But they didnt they led men to the slaughter and dont hold women accountable, they dont spend money fighting the family law courts to get laws more in line with biblical pricipals so they are irrelavent as far as I am concerned.

They are more worried about womens shelters and not offending women in church. Sorry I cant get on board with that at the expense of justice.

Try reading 1 Corinthians 3 again, and I mean the entire chapter:

"And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations? For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?

What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each. For we are God’s servants, working together; you are God’s field, God’s building.

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.
Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

Do not deceive yourselves. If you think that you are wise in this age, you should become fools so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written,

“He catches the wise in their craftiness,”

and again,

“The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise,
that they are futile.”

So let no one boast about human leaders. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God."

Under normal circumstances I might not copy-and-paste an entire chapter of text, but really the only way to understand what is being said in verse 16-18 (which I put in bold above) is to have at least some idea about what Paul's talking about.

Paul is talking about the community, the Church. The harm done against God's temple--the Christian Church--is the issue the apostle is addressing.

If you are looking for the "your body is a temple" passage, it's in 1 Corinthians ch. 6, vs 12-20,

"“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for prostitution but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.” But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun prostitution! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the one who partakes of prostitution sins against the body itself. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body."

In several cases the NRSV has rendered the Greek word porneia (prostitution) as the familiar though archaic "fornication"; for the sake of making my point I've re-rendered "fornication" as "prostitution" and "fornicator" as "one who partakes of prostitution".

To that end it is essential to understand the sacred prostitution trade that existed in Corinth; in Corinth there existed from ancient times a temple dedicated to Aphrodite, and ancient historians (such as Strabo) how the priestesses of Aphrodite offered their services as part of the rites offered to the goddess.

To engage sexually with a temple prostitute was not merely an act of sexual indiscretion, it was to partake in the religious rites offered to another deity, and that is why St. Paul makes such a big deal about it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with smoking, drinking, or tattoos; and everything to do with engaging in what ultimately amounts to idolatry.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bhsmte]

It also seemed you were saying a little bit of bad isn't bad. That is also wrong. If it's bad, it's bad. A little bit of bad is still bad. There is no sense in which a little bit of bad is good.

It would appear, this would all come down to what one's personal opinion on what "bad" is.

You may think a person who eats pizza 4 nights a week and drinks a couple of beers along with that pizza each time is bad and another person would not see that as bad.

If the person who eats the pizza and drinks the beer is 100 pounds over weight and their health was at risk, I would lean towards bad. If the person who ate the pizza and drank the beer was a runner and was in excellent physical condition, I would say that person is quite able manage that lifestyle, without it being bad.

 

[JustMeSee]

If I'm a Christian and I'm saved why is sinning bad why shouldn't I sin or why can't I sin

Sinning it bad for you and your surroundings. As a representative of Christ, you should strive to be Christ like. Your behavior also could give conflicting messages to others who seek Christy.

 

[Resha Caner]

It would appear, this would all come down to what one's personal opinion on what "bad" is.

You may think a person who eats pizza 4 nights a week and drinks a couple of beers along with that pizza each time is bad and another person would not see that as bad.

If the person who eats the pizza and drinks the beer is 100 pounds over weight and their health was at risk, I would lean towards bad. If the person who ate the pizza and drank the beer was a runner and was in excellent physical condition, I would say that person is quite able manage that lifestyle, without it being bad.

Not that I'm agreeing morality is subjective, but it is because of the very issue you raise that I said it's not about works righteousness.

 

[Paradoxum]

Don't try to turn this around on me. You asked me if it was wrong to break your own personal property. I responded to your question.

You replied to my question with a question, I replied to your question, and it was your question I didn't completely understand. You're being silly.

Of course I think sin is immoral. But that's not how this started. We were talking about harm, not immorality.

Ok...

You appear as if you're trying to avoid all responsibility. If they consent, then you're not responsible for what happens. So likewise all a guy has to do is get the girl to say, "Yes." It doesn't matter how he gets that yes.

Do you bear any responsibility for your partner?

I'm not trying to avoid responsibility; I genuinely think there is no moral responsibility if they consent. Of course I think this can vary by circumstance (and that it can be good to bring issues to their attention), but that's the general rule.

If a girl says yes, and there is consent (no consent denying drugs or coercion), then what's the problem?

Can you give me an example where you think one bears responsibility for their partner?

My general rule would be that if there is consent, there's no violation. Though influencing your partner towards a better decision can be morally commendable.

I'm well aware of your hedonistic attitude. And, even though I find it laughable, I'm also aware of what you consider commitment. But I'll ask a few questions anyway: 1) Is someone committed if they feel they can break the agreement any time they please for whatever reason they please? 2) Is someone committed if they only say it to you, and won't tell anyone else they're committed?

I wouldn't say I'm a hedonist. My belief in respect (and non-violation) comes above basic pleasure. That isn't hedonistic.

1) I wouldn't say 'any reason' is commitment.

2) I suppose so. You'd hope there's a good reason for that though.

That's a great idea. Let's get rid of all contracts.

Yeah, that's what I said.

Really? Do you understand how taxes work? The tax you pay is not enough to cover your healthcare. It's a numbers game. If it costs $100 for a particular medicine, and 10% of the population is going to get the disease, then you tax everybody $10. So, I'm paying $10 to cure your disease - that's how it affects me ... or to pay for the policeman who protects you from a string of abusive relationships, or to pay for the detox center because you can't handle your alcohol, or to pay for the foster care (or God forbid the abortion) that results from your pregnancy.

That's $10 I don't have to put toward the transportation I need to get to work, or new clothes for my wife, or supplies for my kids' school. However, if I can prevent your risky behavior I leave you a healthier person and I save $10.

I don't think there's anything wrong with society paying for people doing risky things. Would you apply the same reasoning to sport, or any leisure activity that has some sort of risk?

If you were just a little bit grateful toward the community you live in I would gladly pay the $10, but we've had this discussion before and you've already demonstrated that you have no idea how a community functions.

When did I say I wasn't grateful?

What you do affects other people. Unless you separate from society, you are obligated to that society. Until you are completely self-sufficient, freedom is not carte blanche.

I don't think there's an obligation not to do risky things, and that applies beyond sexuality.

I think that being in a society means accepting that people take risks, and there's nothing wrong with that.

My opinion of you hasn't changed.

Well I get why you'd think that in regards to healthcare. I don't get how I'd be self-centered by respecting someone's consent.

 

[Resha Caner]

You replied to my question with a question, I replied to your question, and it was your question I didn't completely understand. You're being silly.

My answer was a rhetorical question. If you have difficulty interpreting such things, I'll simplify for you. My answer was: yes, there are cases where it is wrong to break your private property. I provided one such example.

Your accusation that I was being disingenuous seemed to relate to the fact that I couldn't connect the example back to sex. I wasn't the one who brought it up. You did. I have no idea why you think this relates to sex. Your example - your issue to explain the connection.

If a girl says yes, and there is consent (no consent denying drugs or coercion), then what's the problem?

And that approach has worked so well that no guy ever slips away from court with an innocent verdict even though he's preying on vulnerable girls. FYI, that's called sarcasm ... since you didn't get the rhetorical question I thought I should explain.

Can you give me an example where you think one bears responsibility for their partner?

Wow. Not even worth the effort.

I wouldn't say I'm a hedonist. My belief in respect (and non-violation) comes above basic pleasure. That isn't hedonistic.

If someone needed a poster child for hedonism, I'd nominate you.

1) I wouldn't say 'any reason' is commitment.

Suppose people are continuously breaking commitments whenever they please. Should anything be done about that?

Yeah, that's what I said.

Could you provide me your address please? I'd like to come and take all your property.

I don't think there's anything wrong with society paying for people doing risky things.

And I've always wanted to try sailing alone across the Pacific. Could you send me a check for that as well?

When did I say I wasn't grateful?

Your attitude oozes spoiled.

 

[AGTG]

Sin is destructive.

 

[Paradoxum]

My answer was a rhetorical question. If you have difficulty interpreting such things, I'll simplify for you. My answer was: yes, there are cases where it is wrong to break your private property. I provided one such example.

It wasn't obvious that it was a rhetorical question. And if it was rhetorical, it wasn't obvious what point you were making.

If breaking your car is a problem, I'd guess the problem is littering, or blocking traffic, not the actual breaking of your car.

Your accusation that I was being disingenuous seemed to relate to the fact that I couldn't connect the example back to sex.

I didn't say you were being disingenuous because you didn't link it back to sex. I said that because you were saying that I didn't understand my own question, when it was your question (or rhetorical reply) that I didn't understand.

I wasn't the one who brought it up. You did. I have no idea why you think this relates to sex. Your example - your issue to explain the connection.

You couldn't figure out that I was implying that your body is your own property? So that's why I asked if breaking your property is wrong.

Anyway, shall we stop talking about this, since we're just complaining at each other?

And that approach has worked so well that no guy ever slips away from court with an innocent verdict even though he's preying on vulnerable girls. FYI, that's called sarcasm ... since you didn't get the rhetorical question I thought I should explain.

Whether or not someone gets away with X, that doesn't change the reason for X being wrong or right. So I don't think what you said is an argument against what I said.

You're reply does bring up the idea of manipulating someone into consent though. I think you should want the consent to be 'self-generated'. If you have to manipulate consent out of someone, then it might be fair to think that the consent isn't genuine.

So then the question is, what counts as manipulation. Perhaps a topic for another time?

Wow. Not even worth the effort.

I was genuinely asking what you had in mind. I'd still like you to answer, if you want to.

I think it's unfair you thinking it's bad for me to ask that.

If someone needed a poster child for hedonism, I'd nominate you.

Well ok... but I just explain why I'm not a hedonist. Just because you see similarities doesn't mean you're using the right label.

Suppose people are continuously breaking commitments whenever they please. Should anything be done about that?

Not trust that they are making a commitment?

Could you provide me your address please? I'd like to come and take all your property.

I never said I was against all contracts. I'm not even against marriage contracts. You're being silly.

And I've always wanted to try sailing alone across the Pacific. Could you send me a check for that as well?

If you train for it, I see no problem with you going for it. There is the risk that the lifeguard might have to save you, but I think that's okay.

Your attitude oozes spoiled.

In what way? (Genuine question)

I don't think I've been called spoiled in real life, which doesn't prove I'm not spoiled, but perhaps I just sound worse on here to you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The problem with that is ashrae poles and temple prostitutes dont exist anymore so the churchs need something to guilt trip people with. Almost no one murders on a day to day basis in a church, sure there might be an adultry scandle every 5 years or so but they need more than that to keep people feeling guilty.

What is the perfect thing, 2 people living and sleeping together that have not been endorced by the state, thats like everyone, now the chuch can create a crusade. Make men the bad guys because of course you cant hold women accountable in church and definitly not in family law courts.

They start deviating so far from God that they become irrelavent. As soon as the family law courts started castrating men (metaphorically) the churchs should have started offering alternatives to legal marriage. But they didnt they led men to the slaughter and dont hold women accountable, they dont spend money fighting the family law courts to get laws more in line with biblical pricipals so they are irrelavent as far as I am concerned.

They are more worried about womens shelters and not offending women in church. Sorry I cant get on board with that at the expense of justice.

We clearly have lived in very different ecclesiastical lives.

I grew up in a church environment that permitted an elder of my church to create a lie so that he could divorce his wife and marry his mistress, the lie he told was that his wife and my mother had been engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship.

The outcome? My mother was expected to publicly humiliate herself before the entire congregation, that meant going up in front of nearly 2 - 3 thousand people in total, on Sunday morning, on two completely different services, and declare that she had been engaged in such an affair and beg the congregation to forgive her.

Why? Well according to the leadership of that church so that she could be restored in right standing again with the church and be completely reconciled. However let's be honest shall we? The purpose was to shame her, because at that moment rumors, and all sorts or gossip would spread and lead to my mother being ostracized completely.

She refused, and I'm proud of her that she refused to be bullied into submission by a group of privileged rich men... well I'll stop there before I trigger the profanity filter on the site.

So naturally we were forced to leave the church, and generally became "that" family in town. Years later after my mom lost her battle with cancer it was just so sweet to have a number of people from our old church who came to console me, not about my mother's death mind you, but instead that I and my family had to put up with such a rebellious adulterous woman who abandoned her husband and two children. My mother and father remained together until she passed, he was there at her bedside the night she breathed her last, and she never once abandoned my brother and I. But the rumor mill churned ahead anyway.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Resha Caner]

In what way?

It would take a long time to paint that picture. The first thing that pops into my head is the impression that you're accustomed to talking your way out of trouble or to get what you want. Your posts seem to depend more on persuasion than substance.

You present this odd mix of worldliness and naivete - as if you enjoy being "bad" but at the same time are completely unaware of how bad the world can be. What I can't ever know in an Internet forum is how much of this is an act.

I was genuinely asking what you had in mind. I'd still like you to answer, if you want to.

There are so many things that to pick just one makes the answer seem trite. I guess I'll just speak in generalities instead. Since I've been married I don't try to do everything myself. My wife does a lot of stuff for me. Likewise, she doesn't try to do everything herself. I do things for her. It's not like I couldn't survive on my own, but we've become comfortably codependent. We are at a place where taking responsibility for those things that help her feels the same as taking responsibility for my personal needs.

Not trust that they are making a commitment?

What good would that do? He's walked out on you and you realize he scammed you in some way, and your response is, "Hmm. I guess I shouldn't trust him anymore." That strategy sounds like a good way to be used.

 

[MehGuy]

If I'm a Christian and I'm saved why is sinning bad why shouldn't I sin or why can't I sin

I think the line of reasoning is that a truly saved man will view sin as abhorrent. While he may still sin on occasion, the holy spirit will have opened his eyes to how ugly it really is. So if you're truly saved you will not want to sin.

I could be wrong though.. I'm certainly no Bible expert, lol.