What sin have I committed that is worthy of eternal damnation?
Ask a Protestant Christian
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
- Status
What sin have I committed that is worthy of eternal damnation?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Nothing of the sort. I do not see homosexuality as a sin or any laughing matter. I am just boggled by the fact that El comes on here and is boggled. I feel that sex is God's means of procreation just like plants and animals do it to procreate. I do not fault men for leaving nature and have an attraction for one another, so I am not making a joke about them. I am making a joke about the fact that God has a will and El is boggled by it. While I do not mean to make light of two men, it just boggles me that that is not procreation. I did not assume they think like that, but doing that does go against nature. If it offended any one, I do apologize.
Dommy what if a man does not sin, but rejects God. Rejecting God is not a sin, it is a choice. Rejecting the Holy Spirit is a sin, because it does not give you any other choice. God cannot allow humanity into heaven, because Adam made the wrong choice. Jesus settled the debt of Adam's choice END OF DISCUSSION. Sin no longer has any effect what soever! Remember righteousness is a filthy rag to God, all He sees is Jesus. God would be unjust if He let any one into heaven outside of Jesus' shed blood. Both believers and nonbelievers sin all the time. If God sent us to hell because of sin, then all of us would go there.
People put too much emphasis on faith, belief , and sin. Faith is taking God at His Word (now the Bible). Belief is not letting Satan, the flesh, or humanity turn your heart from God. Sin is just making the wrong choice when confronted with a temptation. When one starts changing the definitions and adding to them, things start to become confusing. God does not send people to hell for lack of faith, lack of belief, or lack of making "everyday" right choices. Adam had one choice. We have one choice, and that is Jesus.
@ Jehoshua
Grace is not a license to sin. God ordained governments to protect us from chainsaws.
My logic does not say anything about "sincere" belief. The Devil has sincere belief and he is allowed (when God wills) to destroy all the time. People are free to make any choice they want. How do you think wars happen? If a believer allows himself the choice to massacre people, it is not because he is doing God's will, but his own will.
Lovebird
Warlord
Why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
What is the definition of marriage?
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
Your logic is flawed and blatantly unbiblical.
The wages of sin is death. If sin becomes irrelevant then it becomes unnecessary to combat it to the proccess of salvation. Belief in Christ demands sacrifice, it demands that one take up their cross and follow him. In order to believe in Christ one must do ALL that he commanded in word, thought and deed. One cannot simply accept sin as normal or acceptable and base his belief and actions on the ideology that Christ will save all who have simple faith.
As it is written not all who say Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven. One must reject sin and walk the path to christian perfection, one must be holy as the father in heaven is holy to purify himself of sin, to freely accept the grace and mercy of God to achieve salvation.
For Faith to be genuine must manifest itself in fidelity to the commandments of Christ. For the way to hell is wide, flat and easy and the way to the narrow gate to heaven is steep, winding and narrow. You would have it that simple acceptance of Christ alone is neccesary. Then why is the way narrow if it is that simple, if salvation was a simple one time choice, if mere acceptance of Christ was itself alone the requirement for salvation.
The wages of sin is death. If sin becomes irrelevant then it becomes unnecessary to combat it to the proccess of salvation. Belief in Christ demands sacrifice, it demands that one take up their cross and follow him. In order to believe in Christ one must do ALL that he commanded in word, thought and deed. One cannot simply accept sin as normal or acceptable and base his belief and actions on the ideology that Christ will save all who have simple faith.
As it is written not all who say Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven. One must reject sin and walk the path to christian perfection, one must be holy as the father in heaven is holy to purify himself of sin, to freely accept the grace and mercy of God to achieve salvation.
For Faith to be genuine must manifest itself in fidelity to the commandments of Christ. For the way to hell is wide, flat and easy and the way to the narrow gate to heaven is steep, winding and narrow. You would have it that simple acceptance of Christ alone is neccesary. Then why is the way narrow if it is that simple, if salvation was a simple one time choice, if mere acceptance of Christ was itself alone the requirement for salvation.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
The bible defines marriage a an union between one man and one woman. Even Jesus said this was true.
Mark 10:2-9 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
And Paul takes this even further by denouncing any forms of sex that are outside of the bounds of marriage as sexually immoral. The issue in the Church at Corinth was an issue of gross sexual misconduct. In one instance there was a guy having sex with his father's wife, whether it is actually his mother or step mother, we don't know, but that caused lots of divisions in the church, so there was a counter reaction to this that all forms of sex are wrong and this is the issue he is discussing here about what exactly is sexual immorality. It is not surprising that the people at Corinth had such issues, since immoral sexual behaviour at Corinth (the city itself) was the norm and in fact when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans he had just visited the city and you can see what he thought of the city when he wrote the 1st Chapter of Romans when he talks about condemning homosexuality in the first chapter. So as a result of the city they lived in, Paul had to give a direct definition of was sexual immorality and by way he was basically describing what is actually sexually pure sex.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Mark 10:2-9 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
And Paul takes this even further by denouncing any forms of sex that are outside of the bounds of marriage as sexually immoral. The issue in the Church at Corinth was an issue of gross sexual misconduct. In one instance there was a guy having sex with his father's wife, whether it is actually his mother or step mother, we don't know, but that caused lots of divisions in the church, so there was a counter reaction to this that all forms of sex are wrong and this is the issue he is discussing here about what exactly is sexual immorality. It is not surprising that the people at Corinth had such issues, since immoral sexual behaviour at Corinth (the city itself) was the norm and in fact when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans he had just visited the city and you can see what he thought of the city when he wrote the 1st Chapter of Romans when he talks about condemning homosexuality in the first chapter. So as a result of the city they lived in, Paul had to give a direct definition of was sexual immorality and by way he was basically describing what is actually sexually pure sex.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Perfection
The Great Head.
If everyone deserves hell, then is it not unjust for God to not send you to Hell?
Why should that debt only be paid to believers?
classical_hero
In whom I trust
The Bible is not sexist in one way.
Lovebird
Warlord
Agreed, the Bible is clearly sexist in many ways.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
perhaps it would be sexist in terms of a radical feminist ideology.
However for those who are not corrupted by the current societies vices the bible is hardly sexist. On the contrary it holds to a mutual complimentarity of the genders where each gender compliments the other, where each is different in function but equal in dignity and importance.
However for those who are not corrupted by the current societies vices the bible is hardly sexist. On the contrary it holds to a mutual complimentarity of the genders where each gender compliments the other, where each is different in function but equal in dignity and importance.
You know, there's an awful lot in the recent posts with which to get irritated, but if you're a blatant homophobe, please just say so, as it will avoid you using codewords like "not corrupted by the current societies vices".
As for why Jehovah sent the Ten Plagues, as I recall the Bible, he kept hardening Pharaoh's heart every time so that Pharaoh would not consent to allow Moses to leave. That is the perfect example of dickery: refusing to allow someone to do something and then punishing them for not doing it.
As for why Jehovah sent the Ten Plagues, as I recall the Bible, he kept hardening Pharaoh's heart every time so that Pharaoh would not consent to allow Moses to leave. That is the perfect example of dickery: refusing to allow someone to do something and then punishing them for not doing it.
To continue from 5
Notice how this agrees with Luke's Jesus, but not Matthew's Jesus. And the OT
But here's my real question. This has been bugging me for a couple of years.
Now, every time I read this, it looks like it's the temptation->fornication that comes first, and then the marriage. With our modern eyes, that strikes us as wrong, but I just cannot unsee the natural reading.
It looks like if the couple acts 'inappropriately' but with the intention of getting married, that Paul thinks the initial whooppeee is not sinning
We currently live in an age when the 'shotgun wedding' carries shame. The kids are getting married because they fornicated. But it looks to me that getting married to the girl that you break your virginity with is not sinning (according to Paul).
No? Is it possible we put too much emphasis on our culture's preferred order of events?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I don't think that Paul is saying that at all. I think he's saying that If you have passion, it is better to get married than to burn with it. This doesn't mean simply be careless and fornicate and assume you'll get married later.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
classical_hero
In whom I trust
The whole question from 1 Corinthians 5 to 7 is about the issue of sexual immorality. So lets put the whole thing into context. I will quote the whole thing for reference.
Spoiler :
Here is a basic outline of those 3 chapters. Chapter 5 is bringing the issue out in the open and warning the church of the consequences of allowing gross sin to fester in a church situation. Chapter 6 givees the consequences of such behaviour and how such behaviour does not belong in the kingdom of God and that e should be living our lives according to the Holy Spirit. Chapter 7 deals with the issue of marriage. First he says what is the best way to avoid sexual immorality and he says that in the bounds of marriage having sex is the way to be avoiding it. It is interesting that he did not say what fornication is, but how to avoid it, which is a very interesting way of dealing with the subject, so by default anything does nor avoid fornication, is therefore fornication and he explicitly mentions marriage of one man and one woman as what a biblical marriage is. From there he deals with those who are not married, those who are formerly married and never been married, that being single is a good thing, but he does acknowledge that people do have sexual urges, so he says that if you cannot control the urges, it is best to fulfil the urges inside a marriage. That is why he starts of defining sexual morality first, so he has laid down the framework for the rest of the chapter, so he deal with the issue of if people should be married. His preferred position is that they should stay like he is, a widower, since he argues that you can do more for the Lord as a single person, but nowhere does he condemn a person for getting married. He says many times that if someone cannot control there desires for sex, which he never condemns, then that person should be married. Basically the main argument is that if you have sexual desires, get married, if not, then it is best to stay single. So if someone is engaged to be married, and normally that would be a long time, Paul was saying that it is better not to wait until it is too late. Basically he is saying that if you cannot control your urges for sex, then get married.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Such a hopeless romantic
"My dearest, I really want to bone someone, will you marry me?"
Can someone explain to me the moral reasons why someone needs to be married to have sex? Not just: it's in the Bible. But: it's immoral because ...
?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Such a hopeless romantic
"My dearest, I really want to bone someone, will you marry me?"
Can someone explain to me the moral reasons why someone needs to be married to have sex? Not just: it's in the Bible. But: it's immoral because ...
?
In marriage it is "sanctified" by God as in the Beginning. If you use sex to multiply, it "may" be ok. Most people abort the process. Humans are the only creation with the ability to choose to do it or not. While there may be aberrations in plant and animal life, it is not the norm to abort the process.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,514
Question: I accept that the bible condemns same sex marriage. However, in our current multi-faith and secular society, why should anyone else be bound by your conceptions of what constitutes 'marriage'? If you don't want to be in a same sex marriage because of your religion, fine. However, why deny the right to a civil agreement of marriage to others because your religious description of marriage differs?
There are two elements of marriage in today's society: the religous and civil aspect. Why should your commands in the religous aspect be seen as a compulsion to deny others the civil aspect?
There are two elements of marriage in today's society: the religous and civil aspect. Why should your commands in the religous aspect be seen as a compulsion to deny others the civil aspect?
Such a hopeless romantic
"My dearest, I really want to bone someone, will you marry me?"
Can someone explain to me the moral reasons why someone needs to be married to have sex? Not just: it's in the Bible. But: it's immoral because ...
?
It's immoral because sex is for having kiddies, and kiddies need a married, heterosexual couple to raise them. Sex without marriage makes kiddies without marriage possible, and this is a very bad thing <tm>
Sex with contraception is immoral because every sperm is sacred.
I am emphatically not religious, but I'm pretty sure that covers the argument for why extramarital sex is immoral.
- Status
