Jabba The Hunt Posted May 28, 2004 Author Share Posted May 28, 2004 You go to hell if you die having commited any mortal sin in your life, unless you have obtained forgiveness for it.[/b] I do ask God to forgive me for my sins, however I do not believe that this is a requirement of going to heaven. You commit sin by your very thoughts within a few minuets of everyday, humans are by nature sinful. Asking God for forgiveness is about your personal relationship with God. You should try to live like Jesus not because you feel it is the way to get into heaven but because you have given your life over to God and you want to please him. This is about choice, as Jesus free's us from our sins, we are free to make a choice on how we want to live our lives, and our decision should come from our love for God. By believing that Jesus Christ is your personal saviour you go to heaven. As Jesus himself said "The only way to heaven is through me". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by Jabba The Hunt I do ask God to forgive me for my sins, however I do not believe that this is a requirement of going to heaven. It is, unless you have managed not to sin during your entire life. As we are told, nothing unclean will enter heaven. You commit sin by your very thoughts within a few minuets of everyday, humans are by nature sinful. But probably not mortal sin. Venial sins require purification, but do not prevent one from going to heaven. Asking God for forgiveness is about your personal relationship with God. It is most definately NOT about your personal relationship with God, because you also must be reconciled with the Church, with the community. That was why the power to forgive sins was given to the apostles and that is why the ordinary means of obtaining forgiveness is through those to whom they have passed that authority. You should try to live like Jesus not because you feel it is the way to get into heaven but because you have given your life over to God and you want to please him. This sort of imperfect contrition, of obeying out of fear of hell, is not, well, perfect, but it is sufficient. You are correct though, in that we should strive for perfect contrition for our own benefit. This is about choice, as Jesus free's us from our sins, we are free to make a choice on how we want to live our lives, and our decision should come from our love for God. That's fine, as long as you realize that just as you must invite God into your life, you can also drive him out by your own actions. By believing that Jesus Christ is your personal saviour you go to heaven. I suspect that more people will go to hell by following this line of reasoning than any other, because they will be lulled into thinking that whatever they do, they will go to heaven, as long as they believe in Jesus or something. Faith alone is not sufficient for salvation. Remember that the Bible also states that, "Faith without works is dead." We should never feel assured of our salvation. Rather we should, "Work out our salvation with fear and trembling." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by Jabba The Hunt I would like to find a quote in the bible that says porn is wrong, i've looked, but all it ever talks about is sexual immorality, but never defines what that is. .. Originally posted by Keyan Farlander Even if you couldn't get it from the Bible, which should be no problem, you can get it from Natural Law, teaching of the Church, common sense, etc. of course the bible and the church says a lot, but i know no "natural law" that says porn is immoral, the same goes for the "common sense" (the common sense that is not tought by the church/ bible). and i doubt that natural law cares about nudity and whatnot at all. i am not sure if it even has a concept like (our understanding of) morality, since morality is more like a "social law", what again puts it into the common sense.. and because someone does not like porn that doesnt mean it's immoral. also there are so many "variants" of porn plus the definition of porn is somewhat difficult, because it depends to the beholder. porn basicly is for stimulation, but not everybody is stumilated by naked bodies. I suspect that more people will go to hell by following this line of reasoning than any other, because they will be lulled into thinking that whatever they do, they will go to heaven, as long as they believe in Jesus or something. Faith alone is not sufficient for salvation. some "christians" should really think about that.. Remember that the Bible also states that, "Faith without works is dead." We should never feel assured of our salvation. Rather we should, "Work out our salvation with fear and trembling." i fear other things than going to hell, really. and my "goal" in life is surely not salvation, whatever that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by RayJones of course the bible and the church says a lot, but i know no "natural law" that says porn is immoral, the same goes for the "common sense" (the common sense that is not tought by the church/ bible). You'll have to look up "Natural Law" because for me to lay it out would take way too many pages, and it's not really that relevent to the discussion. Check Aquinas. i am not sure if it even has a concept like (our understanding of) morality, since morality is more like a "social law", what again puts it into the common sense.. Morality is not dependent on society, culture, or anything else, regardless of what subset of it any specific society or culture may embrace. and because someone does not like porn that doesnt mean it's immoral. True, it is immoral because it is a crime against the dignity of the human person. also there are so many "variants" of porn plus the definition of porn is somewhat difficult, because it depends to the beholder. porn basicly is for stimulation, but not everybody is stumilated by naked bodies. True, but none of that has any impact on the issue of dignity. i fear other things than going to hell, really. and my "goal" in life is surely not salvation, whatever that means. It means not going to hell. It is the only purpose of our earthly life, according to standard Christian philosophy, and consequently, the only thing I do fear. As for athiests and religious people who believe their ultimate reward, so to speak, is secure, I really have no idea how they view their lifes' goal. From a rather hedonistic viewpoint I would imagine, i.e. enjoying themselves as much as possible in the time they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba The Hunt Posted May 28, 2004 Author Share Posted May 28, 2004 I believe that all sins are equal in God's eyes. I also believe that nothing impure can enter heaven, but at judgement day Jesus covers your sin if you believed in him. I believe I should live my life as Jesus did because I have a personal releationship with God, not out of fear of going to hell. I understand that we both I have different belief's and thats fine. edit: About lifes goals, we are not all equal in heaven (although we wont actually care when we get there) PS for anyone who watches BBC america or actually lives in britian - "OH Yes It is to do with blue hats versus red hats when they should realy be green" - My Dad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonkH8er Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 From seti@home to porn to christianity... you wacky XWA folk what will you do next... *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Yeh,.. we're a fun group. Tennis anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 nope. we're through with ballgames.. --- Keyan: True, it is immoral because it is a crime against the dignity of the human person. but porn is not much different from the "normal doing it" except that others see it.. it would be against the dignity of humans if anybody is punished to do it. but somehow every punishment is against human dignity.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Rabbit Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 You guys have this computer data-crunching thing all wrong. I found Seti in about two minutes using Google: Porn is even easier to find... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 google is porn??!!?!?!!????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Rabbit Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 Why do I feel like I've just given matches to a three-year-old...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 I believe that all sins are equal in God's eyes. I also believe that nothing impure can enter heaven, but at judgement day Jesus covers your sin if you believed in him. And yet I just explained that this is impossible, even pointing out where Scripture said so. edit: About lifes goals, we are not all equal in heaven (although we wont actually care when we get there) It is interesting to imagine seeing someone greater than one's self and not feeling even a twinge of envy. Just as it is hard to imagine that the damned will want everyone to share in their torment. Even their own children. I mean, mothers-in-law, sure, but... but porn is not much different from the "normal doing it" except that others see it.. That is exactly the difference. Having sexual relations with your spouse is exactly the context in which exercising your sexual faculties is proper. That is why your body is able to get aroused. And for a man and wife to give themselves unselfishly to one another is not only not wrong, it is very good. But to put such a special act on display for people to witness in order to satisfy their own animal lust cheapens it beyond measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 Originally posted by Keyan Farlander But to put such a special act on display for people to witness in order to satisfy their own animal lust cheapens it beyond measure. but you know that there are people who like to be watched during doing it? what about threesomes, swinger clubs and whatnot.. i think most people go there/ do it on their own. they definitly know that others will be around, and for the most of them the kick is to know that someone will watch. so it's definitly not the point that those get their human dignity hurt because others watch to satisfy their own "animal" lust. if everybody is fine with it, then there nothing bad about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 That actually brings up an intersting point, Ray, one that I've occasionally thought about: Has there ever been a universal standard of privacy that we have all agreed on? For most of human civilization the concept of 'privacy' that we have today was completely non-existant. Most people lived in communal groups for protection, survival, and the common sharing of resources. Often several generations of the same family lived, worked, and even slept very close together in the same space, especially in northern lattitudes during the winter months. Only the very weathiest could afford to have (and heat) seperate spaces for eveyone to live out of sight of the others. (This is still true in some places of the world.) Yet, the human race still continued to grow and thrive. Not to put too fine a point on it, but people must have occasionally been having sex where others could see. Our ancestors just didn't have the concept of privacy that we hold on to (or perhaps the luxury of it even if they did.) Of course privacy has been mostly defined by culture and circumstances down through the ages. In many cultures bathing was (and in some places still is) a communal activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Rabbit Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Okay. Fine. Porn is bad and evil because it causes bad thoughts to arise in the minds of the impressionable and unwitting. I'll buy that, but if you take that argument that far, you open up the possibility of condemning a number of other things for similar reasons. Videogames. Many of today's videogames are violent to the extreme...even the space fighter sims we like consist of pilots going to space in rockets in order to kill each other with powerful weaponry. Should we really be teaching our kids this sort of thing? Television. They're putting liquor ads on teevee and showing us Janet Jackson's boobie? Consider it banned. Alcohol and tobacco. Drugs!!! Begone, foul demons! Firearms. The disarming of the american populace has been a long time coming. Granting people the right to bear arms only encourages them to keep dangerous items in their homes. What do they need all those weapons for, anyway? Unless they're really commie sleeper agents... Internet. The whole thing is just one turgid cesspool of misinformation and fraud. Kids can get their information by reading the paper, or research by going to the library like we did in the old days. E-mail? Buy a stamp, loser. Saucy clothing. The droopy britches and the see-through tops on teenage kids has got to go. If we allow our kids to start dressing promiscuously, we nudge them gently onto the slippery slope to hell. And while we're at it, adults at night clubs could straighten up a bit, too. It's time to bring back the cardigan sweater and ankle-length skirt. My. Looks like we've got some work to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Tom Lehrer - Smut I do have a cause though. It is: Obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on, but we know what's really involved: Dirty books are fun! That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days I have here a march for mine. It's called... Smut! Give me smut and nothing but! A dirty novel I can't shut, If it's uncut, and unsubt- le. I've never quibbled If it was ribald, I would devour where others merely nibbled. As the judge remarked the day that he acquitted my Aunt Hortense, "To be smut It must be ut- Terly without redeeming social importance." Por- Nographic pictures I adore. Indecent magazines galore, I like them more If they're hard core. (Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties, samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything! More, more, I'm still not satisfied!) Stories of tortures Used by debauchers, Lurid, licentious, and vile, Make me smile. Novels that pander To my taste for candor Give me a pleasure sublime. (Let's face it, I love slime.) All books can be indecent books Though recent books are bolder, For filth (I'm glad to say) is in the mind of the beholder. When correctly viewed, Everything is lewd. (I could tell you things about Peter Pan, And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!) I thrill To any book like Fanny Hill, And I suppose I always will, If it is swill And really fil- Thy. Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately? I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley. But now they're trying to take it all away from us unless We take a stand, and hand in hand we fight for freedom of the press. In other words, Smut! (I love it) Ah, the adventures of a slut. Oh, I'm a market they can't glut, I don't know what Compares with smut. Hip hip hooray! Let's hear it for the Supreme Court! Don't let them take it away! From the Reprise Record: That Was The Year That Was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Originally posted by RayJones but you know that there are people who like to be watched during doing it? what about threesomes, swinger clubs and whatnot.. i think most people go there/ do it on their own. they definitly know that others will be around, and for the most of them the kick is to know that someone will watch. so it's definitly not the point that those get their human dignity hurt because others watch to satisfy their own "animal" lust. if everybody is fine with it, then there nothing bad about it. It doesn't matter if they are OK with it or not. Right and wrong is not determined by consent. Getting drunk is immoral because you are abusing your body; it doesn't matter that you gave your consent. In the same way, porn/threesomes/deviant sexual practices are immoral because they violate the Natural Law, the purpose of creation - in this case, the human reproductive system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Originally posted by Zoom Rabbit Videogames. Many of today's videogames are violent to the extreme...even the space fighter sims we like consist of pilots going to space in rockets in order to kill each other with powerful weaponry. Should we really be teaching our kids this sort of thing? Most games include violence but present it in the context of justice, i.e. you must fight your way out of the alien spaceship because they are all trying to kill you and you have no other choice. Providing you understand right from wrong and real from imaginary, these games should be no problem. They should be avoided if you find that they upset you, desensetize you to violence, etc. But I think that is rare for most people. On the other hand, games such as the Grand Theft Auto series should probably be avoided altogether, as they glorify violence against the innocent. However, I am not entirely sure if this is immoral. I would be interested to consult a moral theologian on this issue. Television. They're putting liquor ads on teevee and showing us Janet Jackson's boobie? Consider it banned. Banned in this context seems to indicate a legal state, and I am not talking about legality. Alcohol and tobacco. Drugs!!! Begone, foul demons! Getting drunk and using some drugs is certainly immoral. On the other hand, moderate alcohol use is not. Firearms. The disarming of the american populace has been a long time coming. Granting people the right to bear arms only encourages them to keep dangerous items in their homes. What do they need all those weapons for, anyway? Unless they're really commie sleeper agents... Self defense, of course. There are some places I would NOT want to live without owning a gun. Plus hunting and target shooting... Internet. The whole thing is just one turgid cesspool of misinformation and fraud. Kids can get their information by reading the paper, or research by going to the library like we did in the old days. E-mail? Buy a stamp, loser. There are plenty of good uses for the Internet. Of course there are plenty of bad uses as well. Saucy clothing. The droopy britches and the see-through tops on teenage kids has got to go. If we allow our kids to start dressing promiscuously, we nudge them gently onto the slippery slope to hell. And while we're at it, adults at night clubs could straighten up a bit, too. It's time to bring back the cardigan sweater and ankle-length skirt. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 On a side note, the bible's got more sex, incest, rape, violence, etc, then most movies these days... I guess we'll have to burn all the bibles like the smut they are. "We hereby designate EC-10, for emotional content..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Wouldn't be much of a Bible without the wages of sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba The Hunt Posted May 30, 2004 Author Share Posted May 30, 2004 Ok Keyan, we all obviously have different opinions on this. Our society allows us to live our own lives how we see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Rabbit Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Okay. Fine. Porn is bad and evil because it causes bad thoughts to arise in the minds of the impressionable and unwitting. I'll buy that, but how on earth are you going to eliminate it? Make it illegal? Great idea--our justice system is underused anyway, and we have a modern system of correctional facilities with plenty of room to house the peddlers of smut. The social benefits from this bold piece of legislation would be like a stiff glass of lemonade on a summer day. Not to mention, the islamic fundamentalists would like to see us ban pornography. But I digress. I'm sure our efforts to stamp out pornography would be much more successful than our *war on drugs* has been. Never mind that any school kid can get ahold of illegal drugs far more easily than their parents can, because the system can work. If we really, really try real hard...we could eliminate smut from our city streets, and put all those merchants of sin (publishers, photographers, dancers, adult store operators, etc.) out of work where they belong. And porn on the internet? Look, if it's on a computer, a computer can scramble it, right? All we need is some MIT whiz kid to make a porno worm or something, and we could easily wipe that crap off the internet altogether. It would be easy--it's just a matter of programming. I say we do it. Ban porn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Originally posted by Zoom Rabbit Okay. Fine. Porn is bad and evil because it causes bad thoughts to arise in the minds of the impressionable and unwitting. I'll buy that, but how on earth are you going to eliminate it? Make it illegal? I've already said I don't think it should be illegal like three times in this thread. Why is it so hard for you guys to grasp the difference between legal and moral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Soooo... what yer sayin' is that it's perfectly legal to make or look at,.. 'cept that nobody should ever make or look at it? Sorry, Keyan old chum,.. but trying to stop the tide of ponography on the web is in my mind kinda like standing on the shore trying to stop a giant, rogue tidal wave with a sponge... a noble effort, but unfortunately largely futile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Originally posted by edlib Soooo... what yer sayin' is that it's perfectly legal to make or look at,.. 'cept that nobody should ever make or look at it? Exactly. People should have the legal right to publish any rubbish they like. That's the way this country works. You can subscribe to whatever form of twisted values you like, as long as you don't violate anyone else's rights in doing so. We just have to remember that just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't immoral. Sorry, Keyan old chum,.. but trying to stop the tide of ponography on the web is in my mind kinda like standing on the shore trying to stop a giant, rogue tidal wave with a sponge... a noble effort, but unfortunately largely futile. It doesn't need to be stopped - as I said, I support the rights of people to publish whatever crap they want, so long as they are not violating any one else's rights in doing so. All one has to do is just not look at it, and he's in good shape. However, that does bring up the question of sending people unsolicited e-mail with pornographic images in them. That should DEFINATELY be illegal. Also, it raises the question of how to protect our children from encountering porn on the Internet. Using software like Surf Watch or whatever doesn't filter out everything it should, and it does filter out some very useful things that it shouldn't. The best solution to this I have heard is that all pornographic websites should be restricted to their own top-level domain - .xxx or something. Of course, that wouldn't eliminate all pornographic content - suppose some guy just feels like putting up an image on his website - but it would keep the vast majority of it under control, and that would probably do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.