Why are they sins?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Alcohol, sex, and even tobacco aren't sins if enjoyed in moderation and within the bounds of marraige.

Alcohol and tobacco should only be used within the bounds of marriage??!!

No, but alcohol and tobacco use can be defined, regulated, and even prohibited within the bounds of marriage, even better sometimes than by the laws of God.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Even the use of a staple like food can become a sin if abused.

Are you referring to cucumbers? Watermelons?

Yup, when consumed at a sitting in numbers ranging from the high doubles to low triples.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Physical violence is commonly seen as a sin, but it can become even a responsibility to one who uses it to prevent a greater evil.

So, as I said elsewhere, the line between good and bad is not hard and fast.

Yes, it is.

You can do something absolutely horrible, having nothing but the most noble of intentions. Road to hell and all that stuff.

Depends on your definition of "absolutely horrible" (if you can define "is", maybe you can try "absolutely horrible").

Originally Posted by Huntster
All things in balance...

Humans have overpopulated the world and are draining it of its resources. Let's balance things and kill a bunch of them.

Are you an environmentalist or Muslim extremist?

Balance is a worthy thing to recognize, but it is not always the best thing depending on your value system.

Balance is universal law. It it is lost, there will be a crash, and balance will eventually be acquired again. In all things. Period.

The example above is one case. I can give you others.

Okay. Entertain me.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, it is.

So I can give you a situation and you can tell me whether or not it is a sin? I think you have unwarrented confidence in your own rectitude.

Depends on your definition of "absolutely horrible" (if you can define "is", maybe you can try "absolutely horrible").

Okay I used the colloquial meaning of "absolutely". As you know, I don't believe in absolutes in the real world. But I can think of some good intentions that might have very bad consequences. Consider this hypothetical example.

Cleaning lady (circa 1928): I feel so good because I did thoughtful thing. I was just down in Dr. Alexander Fleming's laboratory, and the place was a mess! I cleaned up everything, especially those little dishes. Can you believe, some of them had mold growing on them!

Are you an environmentalist or Muslim extremist?

No. I just seek balance, the way you say is good.

Balance is universal law. It it is lost, there will be a crash, and balance will eventually be acquired again. In all things. Period.

I take it you have not heard of entropy. No, Huntster. Not everything acquires balance. Indeed, it is the fundamental lack of balance that allows some things to succeed where others fail.

Okay. Entertain me.

• There are no boys in the girls scouts. We need to add some for balance.
• Congress should always have the exact same number of Democrats and Republicans. That is the only way to achieve balance.
• Christians outnumber Muslims in teaching positions. We need to fire some Christians and hire some Muslims to achieve balance.
• You shouldn't kill off predators just because they are killing your cattle. That is natural balance.
• You and your neighbors should all pool your money and divide it equally among yourselves. That is balance in action.

Are you entertained yet?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yes, it is.

So I can give you a situation and you can tell me whether or not it is a sin?

I can likely tell you if it is a sin in accordance with RCC doctrine. I can also opine on it IAW the Huntster.

I think you have unwarrented confidence in your own rectitude.

Not at all. I'm not claiming to be the judge.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Depends on your definition of "absolutely horrible" (if you can define "is", maybe you can try "absolutely horrible").

Okay I used the colloquial meaning of "absolutely". As you know, I don't believe in absolutes in the real world. But I can think of some good intentions that might have very bad consequences. Consider this hypothetical example.

Cleaning lady (circa 1928): I feel so good because I did thoughtful thing. I was just down in Dr. Alexander Fleming's laboratory, and the place was a mess! I cleaned up everything, especially those little dishes. Can you believe, some of them had mold growing on them!

"Absolutely horrible"? I'd call it "classic snafu".

"Sin"? No way.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Are you an environmentalist or Muslim extremist?

No. I just seek balance, the way you say is good.

Balance will achieve itself. There's no need for you, me, or God to intervene. When there are too many humans on Earth flocking things up, something big will happen, and things will balance out.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Balance is universal law. It it is lost, there will be a crash, and balance will eventually be acquired again. In all things. Period.

I take it you have not heard of entropy.

–noun 1.
Thermodynamics. a. (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.[/url]
b. (in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol:. S

2. (in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
3. (in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death).
4. a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.

I most certainly have. Entropy is balance.

No, Huntster. Not everything acquires balance. Indeed, it is the fundamental lack of balance that allows some things to succeed where others fail.

The fact that some things succeed and some fail is balance.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Okay. Entertain me.

There are no boys in the girls scouts.

Of course. That's why we have boy scouts. That's balance.

We need to add some for balance.

And in so doing, you achieve balance.

Congress should always have the exact same number of Democrats and Republicans. That is the only way to achieve balance.

Over time, whether it is Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Baathists, Sunnis, Shiite, revolution, civil war, etc., ad nauseum, balance is sought. The pendulum swings back and forth, to and fro, and every once in a while, balance is achieved. Then it's lost again. It goes for a while in one direction, then changes to another.

Christians outnumber Muslims in teaching positions.

In North America. In Asia, Muslims outnumber Christians in teaching positions. Muslims are trying to gain more teaching positions in the West, Christians are trying to gain more teaching positions in the East. Balance is sought in the world.

We need to fire some Christians and hire some Muslims to achieve balance.

But then, in the West where Christians outnumber Muslims, that wouldn't be balance. The converse is true. If Christians were disproportionatly employed in the East, balance wouldn't be achieved there.

You shouldn't kill off predators just because they are killing your cattle. That is natural balance.

The cattle are required to feed the humans, who are more populous than both the predators and cattle. Balance is achieved, albeit by humans interacting with nature.

You and your neighbors should all pool your money and divide it equally among yourselves. That is balance in action.

Like Daddy said, if you took all the money in the world and divided it up amongst the world's population, in a matter of a few years, the same people who are rich today would be rich again, and the people who are poor today would be poor again.

In fact, that is what happens every day in a free market.

That is balance in action.

Are you entertained yet?

Yup.

You?

 

[Ladewig]

This sounds like an extraordinary claim to me. Assuming it is true that people in 1860 drank about twice as much as we do, you are claiming that higher overall alcohol consumption is associated with more responsible drinking, that people actually drank much more but knew when to stop and spread the drinking out over the day so that there was less drunkenness.

No. You made the claim that rates of alcoholism was a much bigger problem hundreds of years ago. As evidence for that claim you cited increased alcohol consumption. I agree with your sources that alcohol consumption was greater during that period, but I disagree that such numbers are proof that alcoholism was a bigger problem.

 

[Ladewig]

The one who rejects the Gospel is the one who chooses to reject the Gospel. The other commits sins that have nothing to do with accepting or rejecting God.

The original hypothetical compared two people who both reject the Gospel.

But the question was what precisely are the negative consequences of the one who commits lust, gluttony, and avarice.

 

[Ladewig]

Or on a different note, what precisely are the bad consequences of my working on the sabbath?

Probably nothing if you "keep holy the Lord's Day."

And if I don't keep the sabbath holy? What are the negative consequences of committing the sin of not keeping the Lord's Day holy?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
The one who rejects the Gospel is the one who chooses to reject the Gospel. The other commits sins that have nothing to do with accepting or rejecting God.

The original hypothetical compared two people who both reject the Gospel.

Then both are in a deep, cold, dark, and desperate hole. One is purer than the other, but both are in deep doo doo.

I'd score the one who is going to Hell with better deeds higher than his fellow traveler to Hell.

But the question was what precisely are the negative consequences of the one who commits lust, gluttony, and avarice.

1) Lust: possible STDs, probable divorce or marital problems (if he/she gets married), etc. etc.

2) Gluttony: Do we really need to address this?

3) Avarice: Resentment from his neighbor, separation in spirit from God and neighbor, focus on fleeting happiness, lack of focus, etc.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Ladewig
Or on a different note, what precisely are the bad consequences of my working on the sabbath?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Probably nothing if you "keep holy the Lord's Day."

And if I don't keep the sabbath holy? What are the negative consequences of committing the sin of not keeping the Lord's Day holy?

A lack of union with God.

 

[The Atheist]

I get the idea that it is all made up and if I were to make a belief system I would include the idea of lots of sex and food, which the bible did.

Does anyone know of any christian group that actually follows the ideas of pleasure in the bible?

(bolding mine)

There are a couple of the Wiccan sects you'd be right at home with.

 

[grayman]

Originally Posted by Ladewig
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladewig
Or on a different note, what precisely are the bad consequences of my working on the sabbath?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Probably nothing if you "keep holy the Lord's Day."

Quote:
And if I don't keep the sabbath holy? What are the negative consequences of committing the sin of not keeping the Lord's Day holy?

A lack of union with God.

Providing that one believes in a God.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Originally Posted by Ladewig
Or on a different note, what precisely are the bad consequences of my working on the sabbath?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Probably nothing if you "keep holy the Lord's Day."

Quote:
And if I don't keep the sabbath holy? What are the negative consequences of committing the sin of not keeping the Lord's Day holy?

A lack of union with God.

Providing that one believes in a God.

And if one doesn't, then union with God isn't possible, is it?

 

[Marc L]

1) Lust: ...probable divorce or marital problems (if he/she gets married), etc. etc.

Note, I'm not disputing the first in the list, that's why I took it out.

Why do you see lust as occuring only outside of marriage? Or am I misreading you? Certainly I lust for my wife, and she says she lusts after me. I don't see how wanting to have sex with my wife will lead to marital problems.

3) Avarice: Resentment from his neighbor, separation in spirit from God and neighbor, focus on fleeting happiness, lack of focus, etc.

Ignoring the separation from God, as I am an atheist, what real evidence do you have that the pursuit of wealth makes people unhappy? Or that one can only pursue wealth by making his neighbor unhappy?

Marc

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
1) Lust: ...probable divorce or marital problems (if he/she gets married), etc. etc.

Note, I'm not disputing the first in the list, that's why I took it out.

Why do you see lust as occuring only outside of marriage?

When a man and woman are married, they become "one flesh". There is no lust. There is only longing for union with oneself.

Or am I misreading you?

I hope so.

Certainly I lust for my wife, and she says she lusts after me. I don't see how wanting to have sex with my wife will lead to marital problems.

Desiring one's spouse physically is more than natural; it is required.

Quote:
3) Avarice: Resentment from his neighbor, separation in spirit from God and neighbor, focus on fleeting happiness, lack of focus, etc.

Ignoring the separation from God, as I am an atheist, what real evidence do you have that the pursuit of wealth makes people unhappy?

None. Because it isn't necessarily so:

The disciples were amazed at his words. So Jesus again said to them in reply, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through (the) eye of (a) needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." They were exceedingly astonished and said among themselves, "Then who can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "For human beings it is impossible, but not for God. All things are possible for God."

Or that one can only pursue wealth by making his neighbor unhappy?

Not at all. Nothing is wrong with wealth. What can be wrong is how wealth is used, abused, or not used.

 

[Canadian Malcontent]

you are all totally bent.
what is right and whta is wrong is something that The Holy Spirit reveals to you in your heart. Period.
Do you judge!!! FOOL!!!!
Everyone has their own relationship with God and God deals with them in His way in His time.
FURTHERMORE God Commands you to love them, queer, druggie, commie, Christian whatever ........... you are commanded by God to love them.

Why dont you come and judge me A___OLE!!!

 

[Canadian Malcontent]

Providing that one believes in a God.

With Christ you can do anything. Knowing Christ will lead you to do good things.
Dont ask Huntster, ask Christ.. in your heart ... He will answer.

 

[Canadian Malcontent]

Not at all. Nothing is wrong with wealth. What can be wrong is how wealth is used, abused, or not used.

" A rich man hath no more chance of entering the kingdom of heavan than hath a camel of passing through the eye of a needle." So saith the Lord Jesus Christ

 

[themyst]

*sigh* I really should follow my own threads more often, sorry for the MIA.

Seriously though, it amazes me that some people take this "sex is great and we shouldn't deny it too ourselves!" attitude. Sex and booze cause an awful lot of pain. Controlling these sorts of potentially dangerous forces is exactly what religion is for.

If sex is causing pain, then you are doing it wrong. But you are right in the sense that people often put guilt onto themselves after the fact and create all sorts of interesting mental conditions.

One more story. On the radio one morning, during a call-in program, a woman admitted that she prayed daily to her deity that it would kill her husband so she could be rid of him as some aspect of his personality was highly annoying to her. When asked why she didn't just divorce him, her voice assumed a character dripping with piety and she replied that she was a deeply religious woman and such an act would be an egregious SIN.

Again, this is a woman who daily prayed for her husband's death.

I'd love to hear this explained. Yes, indeedy.

I suppose one could say that at least she prayed, Thank god for pray.

that most people (including children) had alcohol at every meal.

Some people had all the fun.

" A rich man hath no more chance of entering the kingdom of heavan than hath a camel of passing through the eye of a needle." So saith the Lord Jesus Christ

And I thank the lord god every day for debt, with without it I could become rich.

 

[Orangutan]

Don't kid yourself, all sin has consequences.

Yes but:

am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation

I don't have any kids, so I figure I'm in the clear.

All things in balance................

I knew it, You're a Buddhist.

Having alcohol at every meal does not mean alcoholism was rampant. Nor does it mean people were always drunk. A single glass of wine or beer (or two) with a meal is hardly problem drinking.

Also remember that they weren't drinking Foster's XXX larger. It would most likely to be small beer, just enough alcohol to kill the nasties.

(Ignore the posts below I just learned how to multi quote. sorry!).

 

[Orangutan]

ignore.

 

[Orangutan]

ignore.