By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[SkepticThinker]

Read the posts, I don’t see any room for any other view or consideration.

I've read his posts. I'm interested on your claim about them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As a Christian I believe these Scriptures to be true:
”But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.“
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭16‬-‭26‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Why?

 

[Polymath257]

As a Christian I believe these Scriptures to be true:
”But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.“
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭16‬-‭26‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Once again, a clear demonstration of sex-negativity. Paul was rather a misogynist.

 

[YoursTrue]

My morality is based on human dignity. As we learn more about what leads to that, the specifics can change.

But notice that religious morality changes as well. Slavery is no longer seen as appropriate, even among religious believers.

I'm not getting into this now. But keep in mind anyway that the physical temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in the first century CE and so the practices as set forth for priests and others changed. Slavery is another issue. Legal slavery that is. As well as other types of slavery. The issue isn't settled yet as far as what the divine, ultimate judgment of God will be. I believe it is coming, others may not believe that.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not getting into this now. But keep in mind anyway that the physical temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in the first century CE and so the practices as set forth for priests and others changed.

Thereby showing the irrelevancy of those practices.

Slavery is another issue. Legal slavery that is. As well as other types of slavery. The issue isn't settled yet as far as what the divine, ultimate judgment of God will be. I believe it is coming, others may not believe that.

That the issue is seen as open is a lack of moral perspective as far as I can see. This also shows that no deity is required to figure out morality.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Once again, a clear demonstration of sex-negativity. Paul was rather a misogynist.

I see sexual purity with the wife you married alone is proper, moral, righteous and holy. You become one and are joined to that person.
You call this a sex negative, I see this as unholy, corrupting your future relationships with soul ties to other people and actually a curse and not a blessing.
I’ve lived both lives and reaped the consequences

 

[Polymath257]

I see sexual purity with the wife you married alone is proper, moral, righteous and holy.

I disagree. It is proper to explore sexuality while young. It is moral to do so if you are respectful of others. It is righteous if what you do comes from caring and thoughtfulness. And holiness is a religious nonsense word in my book.

You become one and are joined to that person.
You call this a sex negative, I see this as unholy, corrupting your future relationships with soul ties to other people and actually a curse and not a blessing.
I’ve lived both lives and reaped the consequences

I suspect that your background lead to your doing this for selfish reasons rather than really caring about your partners. These are no more 'soul ties' than what would come from a deep conversation. But, for that matter, I deny that having a 'soul tie' to a previous partner 'corrupts' future relationships.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I disagree. It is proper to explore sexuality while young. It is moral to do so if you are respectful of others. It is righteous if what you do comes from caring and thoughtfulness. And holiness is a religious nonsense word in my book.


I suspect that your background lead to your doing this for selfish reasons rather than really caring about your partners. These are no more 'soul ties' than what would come from a deep conversation. But, for that matter, I deny that having a 'soul tie' to a previous partner 'corrupts' future relationships.

Great, we disagree now what? I will keep posting as a Christian what I consider true and you can do your thing. Bye friend

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again, a clear demonstration of sex-negativity. Paul was rather a misogynist.

I wonder now what you think about priests who decide not to marry or nuns.

 

[YoursTrue]

I disagree. It is proper to explore sexuality while young. It is moral to do so if you are respectful of others. It is righteous if what you do comes from caring and thoughtfulness. And holiness is a religious nonsense word in my book.


I suspect that your background lead to your doing this for selfish reasons rather than really caring about your partners. These are no more 'soul ties' than what would come from a deep conversation. But, for that matter, I deny that having a 'soul tie' to a previous partner 'corrupts' future relationships.

Well I figure there are lots of lawsuits about...fair equity in divorce and child support as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

And if she is married and the man dies? How is that any different?

Once again, the woman should be able to get a good paying job and be able to support herself if need be. If the woman wants to be in a partnership to raise the child, that is a good thing. But nothing says that partnership needs to be with a man.

Plenty of people, male or female, cannot get a socalled good job. Maybe they came into a country illegally. It doesn't matter. Plenty of people commit fornication, have children, and can't support themselves.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thereby showing the irrelevancy of those practices.


That the issue is seen as open is a lack of moral perspective as far as I can see. This also shows that no deity is required to figure out morality.

Lots and lots of people apparently have a lack of moral perspective, as you put it.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

That the issue is seen as open is a lack of moral perspective as far as I can see. This also shows that no deity is required to figure out morality.

In my opinion, Christians aren't any more moral than anyone else. They can be decent, morally upright people if they choose to be, or they can lie, steal, cheat, cuss, get drunk, take drugs, commit adultery, divorce, remarry, lust, and be promiscuous before marriage, just like non-Christians. There are many Christians who have committed crimes, even heinous crimes such as murder. In my experience, the vast majority of the Christians I know are hypocritical because they pompously judge other people's moral flaws while purposely ignoring their own. FWIW, I don't accept the No True Scotsman fallacy either.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3.

The Bible also claims that "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). I think this verse might be convincing if it weren't for: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you, being a JW, don't believe in an eternal hell, do you?

 

[McBell]

In my opinion, Christians aren't any more moral than anyone else. They can be decent, morally upright people if they choose to be, or they can lie, steal, cheat, cuss, get drunk, take drugs, commit adultery, divorce, remarry, lust, and be promiscuous before marriage, just like non-Christians. There are many Christians who have committed crimes, even heinous crimes such as murder. In my experience, the vast majority of the Christians I know are hypocritical because they pompously judge other people's moral flaws while purposely ignoring their own. FWIW, I don't accept the No True Scotsman fallacy either.

There is that little clause in the Bible that states each person will be judged by their own standards...

Which I find interesting given all the standards that Christians say are not theirs, but Gods....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, just shows you have a false view of the Bible on this subject:
”Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.“
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭22‬-‭33‬ ‭ESV‬‬

I know, you did not have to post that. The Bible is evil and irrational quite often.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um, nobody. That poster didn't even even use the word.

What can happen, very very rarely. is that one reads a post and gets offended and hits "Reply". Reply will quote that post at that time. It is possible that there was an original version of that post that had "nutcase" in it. If the person that wrote that and had second thoughts he could edit it, and if he edits it before the other person hits "reply" the quote will have the edited version in it and the poster may not even notice it. Also edits within a minute or two do not show up as the post being edited.

That being said I am leaning towards it never being there in the first place.

EDIT: On further reading he may have used that term, but quickly edited it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And if she is married and the man dies? How is that any different?

Once again, the woman should be able to get a good paying job and be able to support herself if need be. If the woman wants to be in a partnership to raise the child, that is a good thing. But nothing says that partnership needs to be with a man.

Oh, then he has to marry her brother in law. And no wasting that moneyshot on the floor. God hates amateurs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What can happen, very very rarely. is that one reads a post and gets offended and hits "Reply". Reply will quote that post at that time. It is possible that there was an original version of that post that had "nutcase" in it. If the person that wrote that and had second thoughts he could edit it, and if he edits it before the other person hits "reply" the quote will have the edited version in it and the poster may not even notice it. Also edits within a minute or two do not show up as the post being edited.

That being said I am leaning towards it never being there in the first place.

EDIT: On further reading he may have used that term, but quickly edited it.

Turns out, there was, in fact, an original post containing the world. The poster completely left it out in their response.
Which is one of the reasons why I can't stand when people reply to someone by butchering the post they are responding to, rather than just posting the whole thing. I find it dishonest, in a way.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know, you did not have to post that. The Bible is evil and irrational quite often.

Perhaps some teachers about the Bible or those who attend religious services that are here can comment. But really maybe they agree with you. Ya think?