You Just Keep Sinning

[paximperium]

What about actions or thoughts that take me further away from Invisible Pink Unicorns? Are they 'sins', too?

Of course not. All thoughts, especially dirty ones, lead back to the Horny One.

 

[kuroyume0161]

One theme I see repeated over & over again on the fundy sites such as Rapture Ready is that all sins are equal.

God doesn't differentiate between "small" and "large" sins.

All are equally offensive to god and deserving of eternal torture if you're not saved.

Hitting your thumb with a hammer and saying "goddammit" puts you in the same league as Himmler,Stalin, and child-molesting catholic priests.

I have seen opinions voiced however that being a homo is somehow just worse than murdering a few million people or so.

Maybe homos don't just get fried in hell---they get dipped in batter first so it hurts more...

And while the 'religious' have at various times discoursed on the varying types of punishments purportedly enacted for various sins (Dante's Inferno, e.g.), it still all comes down to 'eternity', which is overkill (no pun intended) for mass genocidal maniac or one-time inappropriate minor sinner.

To appease those who might get into bits of trouble over this large disparity, several escapes have been concocted:

1. Last rites - so you can get forgiven for any and every sin just before death. This is a rather contrived and badly considered idea as it has an inequality built into it. That is, the mass genocidal maniac can get last rites before death and go to heaven whereas the one-time minor sinner who dies without goes to hell. That is not justice in any form whatsoever. It is just capricious and stupid. Can't say much more about the idiocy involved in this idea.

2. Related to 'last rites' is confession. This is sort of the continual forgiveness process so that your arse is covered in such an event that you expire without some priest within reach.

3. Neither of these always being satisfactory, it was decided by some churches that 'good' people who've done not-so-bad things don't suffer in hell. They go to an intermediate incarceration called purgatory (lit. place or state of purging). After the 'purging' then they go to heaven.

4. When all else fails, there once was a way literally to buy your way out of hell and into heaven - or at least towards the latter with less penance. These were called Indulgences and worked as replacement for stauncher penances required after confession.

The church has somewhat softened the stance over time as noted. 'If you sin then you go to hell for eternity' isn't the only option. These alternatives and purification schemes were probably put into place to avoid scaring the flock so thoroughly that they'd rather not even be part of the religion.

In some interpretations of NT epistemology though, Jesus died for your sins (all of them, not just the original one). The notion being that if you 'accept' Jesus, sometimes followed by a baptism, then you were purified and simply need to be sorry (repent) for any sins you commit thereafter. This is why suicide is considered an 'unforgivable sin' because the act itself (leading to death) leaves no means of repetence.

 

[ParrotPirate]

According to _some_ fundies pretty much just being atheists means we probably raid christian villages, chase off their women and rape their horses... oh, crap... I've been doing it all wrong all this time

So where exactly do you sign up for the raiding and pillaging?

 

[Elizabeth I]

You Just Keep Sinning

Oh I'm sorry.... was I supposed to stop?

You didn't get the memo?

Sorry, it's not. You read the Bible, you study it, you understand it, you do what it says. You don't re-interpret it because you don't like what it says, and you don't cherry-pick.But not cherry-picking means not cherry-picking, which also means every part is read in context. You have to be ready to accept that your current understanding of Scripture may be skewed in some places. That's what I mean by, it's not an echo-chamber. It's a guide.

[highlighting mine] So do you eschew shellfish, pork, cheeseburgers, and 60/40 cloth? Or are those prohibitions some of the ones you "interpret in context"?

 

[AvalonXQ]

So do you eschew shellfish, pork, cheeseburgers, and 60/40 cloth? Or are those prohibitions some of the ones you "interpret in context"?

I interpret these things in context. The context is obvious: Who did God prevent from doing these things? Am I in that group?
Answer: the Isrealites, and no.
I'm a Christian. If you find me the part of the Bible that instructs Christians not to eat pork, I'll stop. Instead, what we have is multiple books of the New Testament focused on reminding Christians that they are not bound to follow Jewish law, and explaining why that is and how it works metaphysically.
The Bible includes many instances where God gave specific instructions to specific groups at a specific time. The Bible also includes instructions given generally to Christians. It is not an excercise in arbitrary judgment or re-interpretation to figure out which is which; the Bible itself makes clear to whom instructions are given, when, and why.

 

[Cynic]

; the Bible itself makes clear to whom instructions are given, when, and why.

Why use a shovel when you own a backhoe, eh?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Why use a shovel when you own a backhoe, eh?

The mindless attacks are neither useful nor interesting, but they are disheartening. Please contribute or don't post.

 

[Cynic]

The mindless attacks are neither useful nor interesting, but they are disheartening. Please contribute or don't post.

I'm questioning your claim. If the bible makes all these things clear, please demonstrate this clarity. Pick any declaration of odd sin and explain, based on the clarity of the bible, it is a sin. Rememer that this is a skeptics board and "because I said so" does not count as a reason, and reasons can be challenged.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm questioning your claim.

See, that's a post that contributes!
Your challenge doesn't interest me, but I appreciate you actually contributing to the thread instead of just heckling.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I interpret these things in context. The context is obvious: Who did God prevent from doing these things? Am I in that group?
Answer: the Isrealites, and no.
I'm a Christian. If you find me the part of the Bible that instructs Christians not to eat pork, I'll stop. Instead, what we have is multiple books of the New Testament focused on reminding Christians that they are not bound to follow Jewish law, and explaining why that is and how it works metaphysically.
The Bible includes many instances where God gave specific instructions to specific groups at a specific time. The Bible also includes instructions given generally to Christians. It is not an excercise in arbitrary judgment or re-interpretation to figure out which is which; the Bible itself makes clear to whom instructions are given, when, and why.

So there's no issue with being gay as long as you aren't Jewish, right?

I mean, the commandment not to "lie with another man" was in the same place as the "no shellfish" one, so that must be true.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So there's no issue with being gay as long as you aren't Jewish, right?

I mean, the commandment not to "lie with another man" was in the same place as the "no shellfish" one, so that must be true.

It's true that the passages in Leviticus on proper sexual conduct are no more binding on Christians than any of the other strictures in the Old Law. It's the Bible's Christian restrictions on sex that we have to look to, not its Jewish restrictions.
I think we're off-topic enough that another thread is wise.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

True. I would like to ask you though, if I start a new thread on a totally different question (one I really want an answer for) will you join in? There may be cake

 

[AvalonXQ]

True. I would like to ask you though, if I start a new thread on a totally different question (one I really want an answer for) will you join in? There may be cake

No promises, but I'll certainly read it and consider. Link?

 

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

If I'm already as far away from god as possible, I can't sin anymore. Cool.

*Nods*
Never thought of that.
Well gotta go...
I have some "sinning" to do then

 

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

What about the goats, though? I mean, I know they're more fun when they're dead, but only til they start to go runny. Then there's the hassle with getting the (now liquifying) carcass to Cthulu's (May He Reign Forever In Darkness) Pit, finding a virgin to sacrifice before you offer up the goat, and so on and so forth. You know the drill. Easier by far to just leave em alive, IMHO. This way, you can get the Marquis and Shemp to come over, too! Everybody wins.






ETA: Dangit Ron, sticking something useful in between the OT replies . . . grumblegrumblegrumble . . .

Eh, virgins are easy to come by these days since the invention of WOW. =D

 

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

Sorry, it's not. You read the Bible, you study it, you understand it, you do what it says. You don't re-interpret it because you don't like what it says, and you don't cherry-pick.
But not cherry-picking means not cherry-picking, which also means every part is read in context. You have to be ready to accept that your current understanding of Scripture may be skewed in some places. That's what I mean by, it's not an echo-chamber. It's a guide.

Follow the blind, blindly?
Yep, that's religion...

 

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

It's not contradictory, no. If there is a single, objective correct answer for each person, but that answer may be different for each person, than the trait in question is individualized but not subjective. Body weight, birthdate, and legal name are all examples of this. So, I claim, is God's intention for a Christian.

*breaks out measuring tape*
Yeah...
I'm pretty sure I could drive a truck through that hole in your logic.

 

[AvalonXQ]

*breaks out measuring tape*
Yeah...
I'm pretty sure I could drive a truck through that hole in your logic.

Your argument, on the other hand, is completely hole-free... because you didn't make one.
Another heckler, or do you have something to contribute?

 

[Matt the Poet]

The Scriptures are clear that behaving correctly is a matter of intent, emotion, personality, and faith, and so the nature of sin is far more individualized than it sometimes is discussed as.

(my emphasis)

See, this is my problem. Like you, I get my morality from the thinking of others (although I tend to go a bit wider than just the one source and try to read contradictory philosophical views), how I feel about a situation and how I perceive others feel about a situation. But you’ve got this extra…thing, which you call ‘faith’ or ‘revelation’ or ‘tradition’ or something which I don’t understand one little bit.

You’re a reasonable sounding chap, you must realise how hermetically sealed this ‘faith’ thing appears to be from the outside. It sounds like it’s just making stuff up and then convincing yourself that it’s true. I’m assured it isn’t – but I’ll only understand what it really is if I have it already. I’m infinitely better off with it than without it, but you can’t tell me why – I’ll only understand what its benefits are if I have it already. Its truth is revealed in every aspect of the universe, but you can’t show me how – I’ll only be able to see it if I have it already. All of this sounds absolutely circular – but it’s definitely not circular at all, and I’ll only understand why not if… you see?

But I presume you think it’s pretty urgent that I get on board with this thing so that I can stop all this sinning I’m inadvertently doing, so you must have some non-circular way of explaining a way into it. Or is there really no other way than to start the making-stuff-up-and-believing-it process and that will somehow lead me to 'faith', which is different?

 

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

Your argument, on the other hand, is completely hole-free... because you didn't make one.
Another heckler, or do you have something to contribute?

Yeah,
Belief is subjective and the logic you used to prove it wasn't...I could drive a truck through.
That was the point...