Obtuse Religious Philosophy

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
Now I ask, Why are these “sins” again? Somebody inform me why I should avoid these behaviors. Furthermore, tell me as Christians why NONE of you avoid any of these sins - don’t say because you accepted jesus and you don’t NEED to any more. That is the weak minded cop out that I would expect from a Christian. Even if you don’t need to follow these because you accepted Jesus you should still strive to match your god’s image, no? Are you guys really striving to be God-like? If not, why?

Let me repost that for Chris. Actually answer the questions this time. Why are these sins, why should I avoid them, and why DON’T you as a Christian avoid them?

Hint Chris will come back with a question avoiding response, based in semantics - filled with personal attacks and distracting facts intertwined with absolute falsehoods. Regardless it is not about Chris. He is a lost soul. The point is for the rest of you to start thinking using YOUR own brains.[/quote]

Not my fault you can’t read what the Church teaches. You can’t bring falsehoods to the table all you want. Why would anyone answer your questions when all you do is make up shit?

I’ll answer your questions, but I’ll post what the actually definition is from newadvent.com not your ignorant definitions.

I will tell you why it is bad to be have pride, greedy, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth.

“Pride is the excessive love of one’s own excellence.”

It is bad to be Prideful because the creature refuses to stay within his essential orbit, he turns his back upon authority. Leads to murder, distortion of the truth, ambiguity.

“Avarice (from Latin avarus, “greedy”; “to crave”) is the inordinate love for riches. Its special malice, broadly speaking, lies in that it makes the getting and keeping of money, possessions, and the like, a purpose in itself to live for.”

It is bad to be greedy because it gives unreasonable love for money, which is only valuable because it is an instrument to conduct life. Leads to usurpition, theft, conning people.

"Envy is defined to be a sorrow which one entertains at another’s well-being because of a view that one’s own excellence is in consequence lessened.

It is bad to be envious because it allows oneself to lessens oneself because of anothers gifts, as if one’s worth was based on another’s possessions. It leads to gossip, murder, theft, assault, &c.

“Wrath is the desire of vengeance. When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal. It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an improper motive.”

The reason it is bad to desire vengeance because you are giving unjust punishment to someone else. Jesus took a whip and flipped over tables in the synogague. Righteous Indignation is not bad (which is just anger), but to want to kill someone because they pulled out in front of you is wrong. It leads to unjust punishment, unwarranted punishment, murder, &c.

“(From Lat. gluttire, to swallow, to gulp down), the excessive indulgence in food and drink. The moral deformity discernible in this vice lies in its defiance of the order postulated by reason, which prescribes necessity as the measure of indulgence in eating and drinking. This deordination, according to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, may happen in five ways which are set forth in the scholastic verse: “Prae-propere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose” or, according to the apt rendering of Father Joseph Rickably: too soon, too expensively, too much, too eagerly, too daintily. Clearly one who uses food or drink in such a way as to injure his health or impair the mental equipment needed for the discharge of his duties, is guilty of the sin of gluttony.”

The reason that gluttony is bad is because it affects our health and free will and our ability to take care of our responsiblities.

"In general slothfulness means disinclination to labour or exertion. As a capital or deadly vice St. Thomas (II-II:35) calls it sadness in the face of some spiritual good which one has to achieve (Tristitia de bono spirituali). Father Rickaby aptly translates its Latin equivalent acedia (Gr. akedia) by saying that it means the don’t-care feeling. A man apprehends the practice of virtue to be beset with difficulties and chafes under the restraints imposed by the service of God. The narrow way stretches wearily before him and his soul grows sluggish and torpid at the thought of the painful life journey. The idea of right living inspires not joy but disgust, because of its laboriousness.

It is wrong to be slothful because one is delict of one’s obligation. Instead of going to work and supporting your family, you get drunk. Instead of picking up your children from school you play video games. Instead of being faithful to your wife you go to the prostitute, instead of paying rent so your family has a home you buy a new car.[/quote]

Well since you want to define everything for every body I’m going to leave you to preach.

Chris here is never going to think outside of his box. Is anybody else willing to expand the horizon of their own box? Perspective requires dichotomy.

Now take it away Chris and company!

Exhibit C will be on its way though… Only a brief intermission for you to spew your definitions Chris, better hurry.

I don’t know about you guys but I’m done with the 19 year old troll. The more you feed him the more he’ll hang around.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t know about you guys but I’m done with the 19 year old troll. The more you feed him the more he’ll hang around. [/quote]

Oh troll, yes before I go I forgot - my disclaimer!

“I insist that everything I have said has been verbose lies and slanting of logic” bla bla bla. Yes, do not use my thoughts as a crutch. Come up with your own thoughts. That is the point here guys. (Not that you can’t agree with me! But no matter how bloody the glove, question evidence displayed)

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t know about you guys but I’m done with the 19 year old troll. The more you feed him the more he’ll hang around. [/quote]

One of those weird scenarios where I’m going to agree with you. But if you saw my reply to one of your earlier posts, it was legitimate. Of course I probably won’t agree with an explanation you provide, but it might help me better understand why you believe it.

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t know about you guys but I’m done with the 19 year old troll. The more you feed him the more he’ll hang around. [/quote]

One of those weird scenarios where I’m going to agree with you. But if you saw my reply to one of your earlier posts, it was legitimate. Of course I probably won’t agree with an explanation you provide, but it might help me better understand why you believe it.[/quote]

I apologize for not responding, I must have missed it. You know how it is when there is a small child in the room. It sort of dominates the conversation.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t know about you guys but I’m done with the 19 year old troll. The more you feed him the more he’ll hang around. [/quote]

One of those weird scenarios where I’m going to agree with you. But if you saw my reply to one of your earlier posts, it was legitimate. Of course I probably won’t agree with an explanation you provide, but it might help me better understand why you believe it.[/quote]

I apologize for not responding, I must have missed it. You know how it is when there is a small child in the room. It sort of dominates the conversation.
[/quote]

It was this, in response to something you said about Jesus’ sacrifice:

I went to church every sunday for like 12 years, but this has always been lost on me. I just don’t “get it”. I don’t get the sacrifice. God could always create another son, i mean he sacrificed his only son because it was the only son he decided to create. And I can only assume god had a plan in mind when he did it (who was it that says god doesn’t play dice?), so he knew jesus would end up “at his right hand”. Like, I really don’t understand what the great sacrifice was if jesus was the embodiment of god and was eternal anyway and died but was just gonna be reborn and ascend. I mean seriously, i don’t understand the significance of this.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

Here is a question that I love asking christians who use that word. Context. Sense every bad thing that the bible says is apparently taken out of context could you please provide one or two good things which the bible claims which are taken out of context.[/quote]

And what ignorant atheists do is take everything out of context in order to demean the word of God. Lawyers do that as well when they are trying to get their guilty client off with an easier sentence. It’s a very old argumentation tool. The funny part is that you don’t even know you’re doing it because you are ignorant of what the Bible really has to say. As I’ve told you, read the book and then you’ll actually have the ammunition to attack it. If you don’t read it you are bound to say dumb things as you did about those who can enter the kingdom of heaven. I know you think you’re smart but you’re coming off as terribly ignorant. But anyone would with your lack of knowledge.
[/quote]

First off, welcome back. I knew you couldnt help yourself. Second, why is it I just asked you a simple and very straight forward question and instead of answering it I get the ignorant atheist response. Nice dance around that one. You also realize that I have yet to attack you personally yet for the last 2 or 3 posts I am being called ignorant, but anyone who attacks your belief is ignorant right? Care to take another stab at that question or what?

Don’t worry Zeb, he is off and trolling other threads. And of course, fucking those up too.

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

I must come off as insane to some. I am okay with that.
[/quote]

It’s not like the good eccentric genius sort of insanity.

[quote]Deorum wrote:

If it wears thin then ignore it. Nobody is forcing you to read it. If you think these sins will negatively impact your life then by all means avoid them. I am not asking anybody to do anything that will not positively impact their life. The point is to do whatever positively effects your life, regardless of some moral codes set by ANOTHER man. Set your own guidelines, you don’t have to follow mine and start being greedy when appropriate, and angry when appropriate and so on…
[/quote]

It’s not that I “think” it. It’s just what it is, religious or not. Continuously exhibiting these behaviors is not a positive thing, unless, as you say, “The point is to do whatever positively effects your life, regardless of some moral codes set by ANOTHER man”. At least you’re aware of your insanity. This is gonna turn in to a damn debate about the relativism of morals, but what you just said is that I can justify whatever the fuck I want if I think it’s in my best interests, regardless of how it affects others. Morals have to be a product of communal input (laws? can you also disregard laws because ANOTHER man made them and they preclude your desires?), otherwise they don’t do anything. C’mon man, like I said, I’m not a religious person, but just as idiot christians make all christians look bad, you make all non religious people look bad.[/quote]

You are taking what I have said and adding quite a bit to it. I think I used the words “where appropriate” or something along those lines, not “continuously exhibiting”. Society checks the man that does not obey the “communal input” of morals. This is not a problem and this is not a relativism argument. You are extracting what you want from my argument. Next time you are confused ask, rather than infer to fill in the gaps.

Also I was unaware an insane man could be an eccentric genius. [/quote]

I grade a lot of papers and I often see this style of writing. You’re overstepping your understanding of the language. Stop trying so damn hard and you might sound less ridiculous. You’re also not understanding my point. For them to be sins they need to be taken to a certain level of extreme. So it’s never “appropriate” as a sin. Is it perfectly fine to get boned up seeing a hot girl? Yeah. But if you spend the next three hours jerking off looking at her facebook page, it’s probably an issue and we can go ahead and call that a sin. I.e., “sinning” is not appropriate. I’m not “extracting what I want from your argument” because you didn’t make an argument. You just said some dumb shit and got called on it.

Disclaimer: I’m only calling it sinning because of the religious context and the general understanding of the term. I’m not religious and am not claiming that my take on this stuff is the religious stance.[/quote]

Who said lust is jerking off for 3 hours to a girl on a facebook page… WTF? I am talking about using sins where appropriate, stop extracting what you want from my words… Furthermore the projected images you are casting on myself are really creeping me out… You’re a weird ass dude… … WTF ewwww man! Find a girlfriend… Lmfao

And so you know, I have not being “trying so hard” at all. I have been sitting back and laughing for the most of these posts, minus a few that literally made me face palm… But really find a girlfriend… Lmfao[/quote]

Dude, goddamit. You don’t understand that once it’s a sin it’s not appropriate? There’s no “sinning where appropriate”. Maybe you’re not insane, maybe you’re just really really dumb.

“Furthermore the projected images you are casting on myself”. Hah. Fuck man, I hope english is your second language. So I guess you didn’t take to heart the part about you overstepping your bounds of understanding. And it’s obvious that you’re trying pretty hard, which makes it so much more apparent that you are just really really dumb.

edit: Taking all your responses together, you also seem to have a huge issue with reading comprehension. Seriously. [/quote]

Dude, guy is a moron from politics to religion. I dropped him off my ignore list…it took him like 15 minutes to get back on…then I dropped him again, the next post I put him back on, this time I dropped him and it took him a little bit longer, but he is just not logical. So he’s staying on forever.

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
I went to church every sunday for like 12 years, but this has always been lost on me. I just don’t “get it”. I don’t get the sacrifice. God could always create another son, i mean he sacrificed his only son because it was the only son he decided to create. And I can only assume god had a plan in mind when he did it (who was it that says god doesn’t play dice?), so he knew jesus would end up “at his right hand”. Like, I really don’t understand what the great sacrifice was if jesus was the embodiment of god and was eternal anyway and died but was just gonna be reborn and ascend. I mean seriously, i don’t understand the significance of this.
[/quote]

I hope you do not mind if I answer.

Sacrifices are done to atone for evils. If we look to the Old Testament the Jews atone for their evils by sacrifices, doves, bulls, goats, sheep, &c. Christians do too, but not to the same extent.

It is not a sacrifice in the sense that it was hard for G-d to do it, it was infinitely easy for G-d to do it and could do it a million times over, it was not a sacrifice for the Father as he wasn’t losing His Son (he was gaining the world), the second person in the Trinity. The sacrifice is not that, it is the sacrifice for our sins. It is the great sacrifice because it is the one great and final sacrifice (not that we do not do sacrifices, but that our sacrifices are now worth something because they are done in Christ) for our sins, which he commanded of Abraham but told him not to. We put our sins on Jesus and we sacrificed Him to G-d as the Jews did to an animal sacrifice.

However, because of the humanity of the Father it was a sacrifice for G-d as well. It was a sacrifice for the Father in the sense that he was sending his son to be sacrificed, that his Son would feel the pain and sufferings of His creation. Just like when Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son on the mountain, G-d felt that because of His humanity, just like he feels the sacrifice when we suffer. It was a sacrifice for Jesus as he felt the will and the pain fully as a human does. So, as we would feel the sacrifice to die for our friends so that they may live, G-d felt that sacrifice that he would physically die so that his friends could live spiritually. The pain and sufferings of dying for our friends maybe temporary, and we may know that beyond is a better future, but it a sacrifice nonetheless.

I understand what you’re saying, but we have to remember that Jesus was fully man, his sacrifice for his friends was in higher order than that of other martyrs because the evil that comes with the creator being killed by his creation. So, Jesus felt the sacrifice as any other martyr does, but his was a 100 fold more because he did it for all of creation and just not a few.

It’s hard to wrap around, I still have trouble. But if you just remember that Jesus was a man, and that he died for his friends. He felt his will not want to be killed, he wanted to continue on living.

Anyway, anymore questions ask.

[quote]Deorum wrote:
Now I ask, Why are these “sins” again? [/quote]

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
I often say things like Jesus Fucking Mary Christ in jest… It’s a sick joke.[/quote]

I understand.

So, tell me who or what is your god?[/quote]

But of course, I am my own god. [/quote]

WOW a 19 year old God. LMAO!
[/quote]

Ain’t that something? Being your own god. Being the creator of your own moral codes.
[/quote]

What is your own moral code? Does it change by day? How does it work?

[quote]Deorum wrote:
If ignorance should not be tolerated your god should then pluck you from your existence here and now.[/quote]

why not you first if that is the case?

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
No, I have a stricter moral code than Christians. It, however is not one founded in keeping my progress chained. You don’t need the Christian Bible to give you morals… STOP with this weak bullshit!

I spit on the idea of blind faith in this piece of shit book and the self deceit that it implies.

Edit: I almost feel guilty as my debating has grown less toying and more serious… It doesn’t quite seem fair. I would honestly almost want a disclaimer on the thread of some sort to keep out any who would not want to hear such a debate on their religion. I can understand that some do not, but seeing as the people who are in here are willing to fight for it, I am feeling less and less moral conflict with giving them the debate they want. They will likely put their fingers in their ears and shout anyway… Regardless I’m done holding back punches for now. I’ll probably take another leave if it gets to the point where it did before where the meaning of the debate was lost in personal attacks.
[/quote]

I presume you’re an atheist then?

If that is the case, then according to your naturalistic materialistic world view, we are the product of evolution just like every other creature. And if thats the case then what is the logic behind morals, considering no other animal has a moral code like we do? According to your view morals shouldn’t even exist. The only thing that is “good” is to make sure that your genes can survive and be passed down to the next generation.[/quote]

… Jesus. So because no other animal is complex enough to develop a moral code for living that means I can’t? Listen if you want to put yourself on the same mental plane as the rest of the animals go ahead but that is a horribly weak argument. Furthermore I do have a god…

“naturalistic materialistic world view” …wtf? HELLLOOOO thaaar oxymoron, nice to meet you!

You don’t have to throw in words that are over your head just to match the vocabulary I might use… My vocabulary doesn’t make my argument any stronger or weaker it is just the language I am most comfortable using. That kind of shit is just going to distract from your argument.[/quote]

Wow so through all I’ve said, all you can focus on is "naturalitic materialistic? I use that term to emphasize your world view.

But anyways, no, if other creatures don’t have morals why should you? You’re an animal just like them and in the animal kingdom these “higher level attributes” don’t exist. You’re either an animal, whose only concern is survival, or you’re a human being created in the image of God with some of the attributes of your creator. I know you’ll come up with loop holes but I’d really like to see your response to this.

This kid doesn’t want to be debate or discuss, he wanted to bitch and moan, that’s ALL he wanted to do.

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t know about you guys but I’m done with the 19 year old troll. The more you feed him the more he’ll hang around. [/quote]

One of those weird scenarios where I’m going to agree with you. But if you saw my reply to one of your earlier posts, it was legitimate. Of course I probably won’t agree with an explanation you provide, but it might help me better understand why you believe it.[/quote]

I apologize for not responding, I must have missed it. You know how it is when there is a small child in the room. It sort of dominates the conversation.
[/quote]

It was this, in response to something you said about Jesus’ sacrifice:

I went to church every sunday for like 12 years, but this has always been lost on me. I just don’t “get it”. I don’t get the sacrifice. God could always create another son, i mean he sacrificed his only son because it was the only son he decided to create. And I can only assume god had a plan in mind when he did it (who was it that says god doesn’t play dice?), so he knew jesus would end up “at his right hand”. Like, I really don’t understand what the great sacrifice was if jesus was the embodiment of god and was eternal anyway and died but was just gonna be reborn and ascend. I mean seriously, i don’t understand the significance of this.
[/quote]

Good question and one that more people should consider. Here’s my answer: Jesus Christ was basically half man and half God when he walked the earth. God allowed him to be born of a woman and tortured. It’s true that he was going to ascend to heaven, but he still had to go through the trials (literally) and tribulations of a persecuted man. Jesus Christ felt everyone one of those punches and slaps. He felt everyone of those lashes to his back and the crown of thorns on his head. He certainly felt the pain of having spikes driven through his hands and feet. And he absolutely felt the humiliation of the entire process. That is the sacrifice I speak of. That is the great gift that only God could have given us. And through that gift we are ale to have eternal life in heaven, if we choose it. And that is the reason why I am proud to say that I am a Christian.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

I presume you’re an atheist then?

If that is the case, then according to your naturalistic materialistic world view, we are the product of evolution just like every other creature. And if thats the case then what is the logic behind morals, considering no other animal has a moral code like we do? According to your view morals shouldn’t even exist. The only thing that is “good” is to make sure that your genes can survive and be passed down to the next generation.[/quote]

You know that most disease used to be considered demonic possession or divine punishment, right? (don’t worry, I’m going somewhere with this)[/quote]

Still waitin.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

I presume you’re an atheist then?

If that is the case, then according to your naturalistic materialistic world view, we are the product of evolution just like every other creature. And if thats the case then what is the logic behind morals, considering no other animal has a moral code like we do? According to your view morals shouldn’t even exist. The only thing that is “good” is to make sure that your genes can survive and be passed down to the next generation.[/quote]

You know that most disease used to be considered demonic possession or divine punishment, right? (don’t worry, I’m going somewhere with this)[/quote]

Still waitin.[/quote]

In the Bible Christ says the blind man’s blindness is NOT because of his sins or the sins of his parents.

hense-not divine punishment.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

I presume you’re an atheist then?

If that is the case, then according to your naturalistic materialistic world view, we are the product of evolution just like every other creature. And if thats the case then what is the logic behind morals, considering no other animal has a moral code like we do? According to your view morals shouldn’t even exist. The only thing that is “good” is to make sure that your genes can survive and be passed down to the next generation.[/quote]

You know that most disease used to be considered demonic possession or divine punishment, right? (don’t worry, I’m going somewhere with this)[/quote]

Still waitin.[/quote]

Yes, but the indwelling demons were able to cause disease. Not every disease was caused by demonic possession, but in some instances it was the cause. That is why Jesus himself addressed the demons responsible for these conditions. You cannot talk to someone who is not there.

So yes, most of the time diseases were not caused by demonic possession, but sometimes they were, and when the demons were removed, they were addressed.

Where are you going with this?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Have you ever read about the archeological digs which prove many of the stories of the Bible? You should do some reading.[/quote]

So some of the Bible is based in fact, therefore a talking snake and burning bush with delusions of eloquence must have been real too.

LOLNICELOGICTHEREBRO