Answering old threads thread Part II

[Idolater]

The other one's getting a little long in the tooth and otherwise. https://theologyonline.com/threads/answering-old-threads-thread.58428/

This is a good old thread:

Incorrect. While it is about temptation and what 'temps' us, I did NOT act on that until marriage at the age of 27. Am I rare? Perhaps, but that isn't the point. The point is that sin is an act. If God told me to remain single, "getting married" (an act) would be for me, a sin.

Please listen:
In order to help young men and women combat sexuality/sensuality, Paul said: Treat all older women as mothers and all younger women as sisters, in all purity (and conversely, fathers and brothers).

If you are looking at a person of the opposite sex (or in this case the same) as if they were your brother/sister in Christ, belonging to Him, your life motivators become INCREDIBLY different. You treat the sister as if she belongs to another (Christ), and so tell her so when/if she were to even make advances: "Until God give you a husband, don't awaken love until it desires - Song of Solomon 2:7, 3:5, 8:4 You are my sister and my friend and unless God does the giving, another man's wife or God's alone."

Intojoy was getting at this with his Billy Graham thread. The reason we have failing pastors and church workers is because by and large, we fail to do as Paul says. We fail to treat others as creations belonging to the Hand of God. We all fail on this, but to whatever degree we have done so, we have lost sight of our calling.

All Christians MUST be against fornication, adultery, and homosexuality because it treats others as objects of human desire, rather than belonging solely to the God of the universe. When we love each other like sisters and brothers in Christ, all this sexual nonsense falls by the wayside because it is self-interested, not other interested at all. THAT is why I married my best friend. I couldn't see her any other way, until then. -Mark 10:9

I don't disagree with anything Lon says here, but it's important to note that demons don't only want us to sin, in fact, they're more interested in making us suffer, because they hate us (whether it's sinful or not). A demonic suggestion doesn't need to be a sin to make you suffer. It could be to overeat and get unhealthy. It could be to procrastinate. It could be to not go to church or pray anymore. It doesn't need to be a sin, to make you miserable. They hate you. They'll lead you down any path you want, as long as it leads to your destruction, death and /or despondency.

Here's another brief firearms thread:

44 Magnum

That round was made for a lever-gun imo.

 

[Derf]

The other one's getting a little long in the tooth and otherwise. https://theologyonline.com/threads/answering-old-threads-thread.58428/

This is a good old thread:

I don't disagree with anything Lon says here, but it's important to note that demons don't only want us to sin, in fact, they're more interested in making us suffer, because they hate us (whether it's sinful or not). A demonic suggestion doesn't need to be a sin to make you suffer. It could be to overeat and get unhealthy. It could be to procrastinate. It could be to not go to church or pray anymore. It doesn't need to be a sin, to make you miserable. They hate you. They'll lead you down any path you want, as long as it leads to your destruction, death and /or despondency.

Here's another brief firearms thread:
That round was made for a lever-gun imo.

Hard to argue against Christians needing to eschew pornography and adultery. Or against demons being demonic. Sometimes the demons might make you less miserable temporarily before they make you more miserable in the long term.

 

[Idolater]

Hard to argue against Christians needing to eschew pornography and adultery. Or against demons being demonic. Sometimes the demons might make you less miserable temporarily before they make you more miserable in the long term.

Test the spirits. When we're reading Scripture, we're reading the Holy Spirit (that's what Catholics believe), so whatever spiritual proposal we're considering, if it conflicts with Scripture that's one test. It might not test out, in which case, you can ignore that idea, forever, permanently. That spirit's been tested and he's not able to persuade you to accept his proposal anymore, he's been defeated, dispatched. No longer a credible threat.

But the Holy Spirit also proposes ideas to you, "whispering silently into your mind." You need to test Him too. That's what He said! He said to test Himself! He said to put the Lord your God to the test! (That's what Catholics believe, because Catholicism believes the Holy Spirit is the LORD our God, and that the Holy Spirit is spatially present within members of the Body of Christ, along with all the other spirits which are spatially present within us. We must test them all, and that includes the Lord our God, since He too is spatially present within us ---- again, according to Catholicism.)

Who is this "us?": 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and ithe spirit of error.

Is it just the Church? (Catholics believe the Church and the Body of Christ are the same thing.)

Is it Hebrews? (Catholics believe all the Apostles were Hebrews.)

Is it the Apostles? (Whether they are all Hebrews or not? (Seems one of the Apostles was actually a Canaanite and not a Hebrew?)

Anyway, since all of Paul's letters are titled after their addressees, I was thinking it would be interesting to think of books like James and Hebrews as "First and Second Jerusalemites" or "Judeans" or something like that. It's unclear to me whom John is writing to in 1st John though. Is it as Dispensationalism says, perhaps "3rd Judeans?" Or is it written to Gentiles also? There's some dispute about whether 1st Corinthians was written to Gentiles, since it spends so much time talking about Holy Communion. Perhaps it was written to Jerusalemites who lived in the particular church in Corinth? and not in Jerusalem /Judea?

Actually isn't that part of the Levant called "Palestine?" Maybe James, Hebrews, 1st-through-3rd John, 1st & 2nd Peter, and Revelation are "First," "Second," "Third," "Fourth," "Fifth," "Sixth," "Seventh" and "Eighth Palestinians." Oh, and Jude. Actually all the Gospels too, right? According to Dispenationalism yes I think so. That would be really clear then, if you have Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, etc., and then you have like 1st-through-14th Palestinians. Are you a Palestinian (I'm not)? Then pay closer attention to all Paul's letters because he's writing to non-Palestinians.

Except 1st Corinthians, I guess. Not 100% anyway. Again ... I guess.

 

[Derf]

Test the spirits. When we're reading Scripture, we're reading the Holy Spirit (that's what Catholics believe), so whatever spiritual proposal we're considering, if it conflicts with Scripture that's one test. It might not test out, in which case, you can ignore that idea, forever, permanently. That spirit's been tested and he's not able to persuade you to accept his proposal anymore, he's been defeated, dispatched. No longer a credible threat.

But the Holy Spirit also proposes ideas to you, "whispering silently into your mind." You need to test Him too. That's what He said! He said to test Himself! He said to put the Lord your God to the test! (That's what Catholics believe, because Catholicism believes the Holy Spirit is the LORD our God, and that the Holy Spirit is spatially present within members of the Body of Christ, along with all the other spirits which are spatially present within us. We must test them all, and that includes the Lord our God, since He too is spatially present within us ---- again, according to Catholicism.)

Who is this "us?": 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and ithe spirit of error.

Is it just the Church? (Catholics believe the Church and the Body of Christ are the same thing.)

Is it Hebrews? (Catholics believe all the Apostles were Hebrews.)

Is it the Apostles? (Whether they are all Hebrews or not? (Seems one of the Apostles was actually a Canaanite and not a Hebrew?)

Anyway, since all of Paul's letters are titled after their addressees, I was thinking it would be interesting to think of books like James and Hebrews as "First and Second Jerusalemites" or "Judeans" or something like that. It's unclear to me whom John is writing to in 1st John though. Is it as Dispensationalism says, perhaps "3rd Judeans?" Or is it written to Gentiles also? There's some dispute about whether 1st Corinthians was written to Gentiles, since it spends so much time talking about Holy Communion. Perhaps it was written to Jerusalemites who lived in the particular church in Corinth? and not in Jerusalem /Judea?

Actually isn't that part of the Levant called "Palestine?" Maybe James, Hebrews, 1st-through-3rd John, 1st & 2nd Peter, and Revelation are "First," "Second," "Third," "Fourth," "Fifth," "Sixth," "Seventh" and "Eighth Palestinians." Oh, and Jude. Actually all the Gospels too, right? According to Dispenationalism yes I think so. That would be really clear then, if you have Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, etc., and then you have like 1st-through-14th Palestinians. Are you a Palestinian (I'm not)? Then pay closer attention to all Paul's letters because he's writing to non-Palestinians.

Except 1st Corinthians, I guess. Not 100% anyway. Again ... I guess.

I think there's little doubt we can learn much from all the books of the New Testament, but we have to understand how they were written to whom they were written.

I don't think we should take the subject matter as our guide regarding to whom they were written, at least in most cases, since we (rightly, with caveats) use "to whom they were written" to tell us whether the subject matter applies to us, making it circular. 1st Corinthians, like most of Paul's writings, is directed at churches that had some Jews and some Gentiles in them, mostly Gentiles. If anything, Romans, imo, is the exception, probably because he had never been there to preach the gospel prior to writing the letter, in which case, they might have had more Jews than Gentiles.

 

[Idolater]

I think there's little doubt we can learn much from all the books of the New Testament, but we have to understand how they were written to whom they were written.

What do you mean by this? I read the rest of your post thinking it'd clarify but it didn't. Can you talk more about this?

I don't think we should take the subject matter as our guide regarding to whom they were written, at least in most cases, since we (rightly, with caveats) use "to whom they were written" to tell us whether the subject matter applies to us, making it circular.

In a sense the whole Bible is written right directly to all those of us who believe in God, and in another sense to every man, woman and child without exception. Although Catholicism specifically believes that the Holy Spirit "has spoken through the prophets."

1st Corinthians, like most of Paul's writings, is directed at churches that had some Jews and some Gentiles in them, mostly Gentiles.

Of course, being in places like Corinth (in Greece) and not Palestine.

If anything, Romans, imo, is the exception, probably because he had never been there to preach the gospel prior to writing the letter, in which case, they might have had more Jews than Gentiles.

But again it was in Italy, and the Romans were always clearly Gentiles, back in the Maccabean era Judeans cut a deal with Rome for protection against their enemies.

 

[Derf]

What do you mean by this? I read the rest of your post thinking it'd clarify but it didn't. Can you talk more about this?

Maybe. It sounded better in my head. I guess my point was that WHO it was written to is important, but discerning how it applies to them helps us to better apply it to ourselves.

For instance, if Ezekiel 38 was written to people that it didn't apply to at all (because they would be long dead when the prophecies came to pass), then it wasn't really written FOR them.

In a sense the whole Bible is written right directly to all those of us who believe in God, and in another sense to every man, woman and child without exception. Although Catholicism specifically believes that the Holy Spirit "has spoken through the prophets."


Of course, being in places like Corinth (in Greece) and not Palestine.


But again it was in Italy, and the Romans were always clearly Gentiles, back in the Maccabean era Judeans cut a deal with Rome for protection against their enemies.

But there were a lot of Jews in Rome. And the normal trend was to take the gospel to the Jews first in any new area. Some usually believed and some didn't. Then some Gentiles usually believed and some didn't. So the churches were a mixture, with probably more Gentiles than Jews...where Paul had gone. Where he hadn't yet gone, but there were already members of the body of Christ, it was due to someone else, likely a Jew (though not required), who might have had less inclination to share with Gentiles than Paul had.

 

[Idolater]

Maybe. It sounded better in my head. I guess my point was that WHO it was written to is important, but discerning how it applies to them helps us to better apply it to ourselves.

Yeah. I think that's basically by analogy the "Constitutional Originalist" postition on the matter: c. It's not open for debate, it's a matter of study and scholarship, not an opportunity to advance your ideology. If you want to advance your ideology, you're going to have to introduce something new into the mix, and if we rule out anything which isn't already in Scripture, then nothing can ever come from outside Scripture. I know that's the notion, even though nobody who isn't Catholic or Orthodox ever actually follows it.

For instance, if Ezekiel 38 was written to people that it didn't apply to at all (because they would be long dead when the prophecies came to pass), then it wasn't really written FOR them.

It was definitely written for them, it was obv not written TO them.

But there were a lot of Jews in Rome. And the normal trend was to take the gospel to the Jews first in any new area.

Even for Paul? lol

Some usually believed and some didn't. Then some Gentiles usually believed and some didn't. So the churches were a mixture, with probably more Gentiles than Jews...where Paul had gone.

Yeah I was going to say ... "except in Palestine."

Where he hadn't yet gone, but there were already members of the body of Christ, it was due to someone else, likely a Jew (though not required), who might have had less inclination to share with Gentiles than Paul had.

Completely agree. And every single one of the first zone of Christian believers, who were made (by themselves; voluntarily, in and by and through faith) on Pentecost in c. A.D. 33, in Palestine, while being preached to by Saint Peter aka Simon son of Jonah the Palestinian fisherman (and disciple of the Palestinian Jesus of Nazareth), are all involved in the spread of the Church, and Acts chapter two vividly tells us how many foreigners were present, listening to Peter talk, c. a dozen different nations were mentioned, from all around the Mediterranean. All those people then went back home. And the rest is history (the most crucial plot points of this history are actually captured for us in great detail in Acts).

It did take a while for Paul to build on the foundation which Peter had laid. Many years ---- but not many decades. This is why they had the First Church Council, because, as @Nick M always says ... c. "there was a dispute."

There sure was a dispute. But then Acts records for us that the Church is already equipped to deal with crucial matters, it wasn't due to any new revelation that the Council prevailed, it was because of the bishops having a conference and discussing the matter. This conference was probably the most Palestinian conference in history though at this point, probably every last one of the bishops there, from every corner of the Sea and the East, was a Palestinian by ethnicity. But nonetheless even with just all the remaining Apostles there (James (Jacob) son of Zebedee and brother of John ("John" was an important name in the Maccabean narratives) had been murdered already), there was no new revelation provided, they basically just hashed out the revelations which they had already received. They worked it out.

 

[Idolater]

Who is this "us?": 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and ithe spirit of error.

Is it just the Church? (Catholics believe the Church and the Body of Christ are the same thing.)

Is it Hebrews [the Hebrews (people)]?

I think it's the bishops.

I think John here is writing not as an Apostle as if he is a towering authority over everybody else, but that he's just another bishop, like how Peter wrote his epistles. He wasn't saying, "Hey, I'm Saint Peter and you're not! Now listen to me!" Peter's epistles read just as persuasively as all the rest of the New Testament, it's not declaratory or anything like that. Peter explicitly says he himself is a bishop, he doesn't specifically say he's the pope.

(Catholics believe all the Apostles were Hebrews.)


Is it the Apostles? (Whether they are all Hebrews or not? (Seems one of the Apostles was actually a Canaanite and not a Hebrew?)

(btw both Canaanites and Hebrews are Palestinians.)

If it is just the Apostles, this "us," even then that means everything we have from every other Apostle is thereby consecrated as Scripture, because this is John the Apostle writing, saying that everything from him and the rest of the Apostles, is basically Scripture, and the Holy Spirit.

When he says test the spirits, and he's saying compare the spirits to what I, John write, that means he's saying he's got the Spirit when we writes ... or teaches, no? I mean, by word-of-mouth, rather than with pen and ink?

... Again ... I guess.

 

[Clete]

It did take a while for Paul to build on the foundation which Peter had laid.

Romans 15:20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I (Paul) should build on another man’s foundation,
21 but as it is written:
“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I (Paul) have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.

The following is a complete list of the passages of scripture that say anything about Peter laying a foundation....

*crickets*

 

[Idolater]

Romans 15:20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I (Paul) should build on another man’s foundation,
21 but as it is written:
“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I (Paul) have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.

The following is a complete list of the passages of scripture that say anything about Peter laying a foundation....

*crickets*

That's fine Clete. But what you can't show because there's no proof of it, is that there were no believers in Corinth before Paul got there, what? like 13 years after Peter pierced the hearts of those present in Palestine on Pentecost in c. A.D. 33? You can't show that, and meanwhile we can show that there were people present at that Petrine sermon from all over the known World at that time. Who are you to say that none of those people, and then none of the people that those people might have converted, were living in Corinth already by the time Paul shlepped the Gospel up there in, what? c. A.D. 46? I mean, Galatians is supposed to have been written in c. A.D. 50, so it's definitely conceivable that this was about when he first got there.

But he was the first Apostle to visit Corinth, that was the big thing, and the Apostles, were church-planters. They actually went around establishing the Church. Paul made bishops. Like Titus and Timothy. From among the Gentiles (non-Palestinians) sometimes.

That's the foundation Paul's talking about. Of course he laid that foundation, he was the only Apostle who ever showed up! The rest of the Apostles didn't wander bravely out of Palestine for years or even decades after Paul led the way, trailblazer. (I mean, there was Antioch. I don't think you can think of that as Palestine, is it the Levant? idk, but I'm less certain that it's considered Palestine. I think it was another country.)

 

[Idolater]

Another very old thread, a good one:

Are you for or against the legalization of prostitution? Why?

One of the answers I gave in another thread applies:

This for some reason prompted the thought that this is what this country did with the slave trade. It permitted slavery and in such an environment the natural economic forces brought about two things, consolidation and centralization of the slave trade. Where before, there were many slave traders, economic forces brought about consolidation and centralization, such that the slave trade itself became a lost art everywhere except the consolidated, centralized slave traders.

Once we outlawed the slave trade, it was easy to do, because of the prior consolidation and centralization which flourished while it was legal. They were shut down, and easily.

Like letting the wheat and the tares grow up together, they distinguished themselves, and it was easy to collect the tares and throw them into the fire.

Just a thought fwiw.

And worth noting that they'd be regulated at, but I can't say at here. Implied profanity or vulgarity or something like that. It's unfortunate when you're censored from saying something. You have to get creative.

And because of that, not only would every slave trader be registered with the government and paying taxes and providing employee information, ... well no, that ... was the whole point. It was easy to shut it down, like a lightswitch, because of how regulated it could be, if and only if, legal. For a time.

rn prostitution is illegal, and it's dispersed and decentralized, it's completely disorganized, so even if law enforcement organizes globally, it's not up against another organization, it's like Vietnam, and Afghanistan.

Those are never going to overrun the World, they can only seep in, but until there's a consolidated, centralized organization, we can't stop the seepage. We can't fix the leak.

 

[Idolater]

Barbarian literally destroyed the O.P. in post number two:

How plumbing (not vaccines) eradicated disease

How plumbing (not vaccines) eradicated disease This is a good article though limited in scope. It's also funny how a person forgets things like this as I've read articles and have seen several TV specials about how plumbing eradicated diseases in the US but hadn't thought about it in relation...

theologyonline.com

 

[Derf]

Romans 15:20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I (Paul) should build on another man’s foundation,
21 but as it is written:
“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I (Paul) have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.

The following is a complete list of the passages of scripture that say anything about Peter laying a foundation....

*crickets*

Are you seriously suggesting you didn't just give the scripture talking of Peter laying a foundation, Rom 15:20?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Another very old thread, a good one:

One of the answers I gave in another thread applies:

And worth noting that they'd be regulated at, but I can't say at here. Implied profanity or vulgarity or something like that. It's unfortunate when you're censored from saying something. You have to get creative.

And because of that, not only would every slave trader be registered with the government and paying taxes and providing employee information, ... well no, that ... was the whole point. It was easy to shut it down, like a lightswitch, because of how regulated it could be, if and only if, legal. For a time.

rn prostitution is illegal, and it's dispersed and decentralized, it's completely disorganized, so even if law enforcement organizes globally, it's not up against another organization, it's like Vietnam, and Afghanistan.

Those are never going to overrun the World, they can only seep in, but until there's a consolidated, centralized organization, we can't stop the seepage. We can't fix the leak.

Prostitution should be a criminal offense, punishable by flogging.

From America's Criminal Code:

You shall not commit adultery. - Judges will execute those convicted of bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16); those convicted of incest including with in-laws (Lev. 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-21); of homosexual acts (Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13); of child molestation; of kidnapping or rape (Ex. 21:15-16; Deut. 22:25-27; 24:7); and of adultery with a married woman (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Ex. 20:14). - Judges will flog those convicted of fornication; of public use of vulgar sexual and excretory language; of sexually suggestive dress or behavior; of intoxication; and of possession of pornography. - Judges will flog more severely those convicted of transvestism; of public nudity; and of distributing pornography. - And judges will flog more severely still those convicted of prostitution; of producing pornography for any use; and of sexual acts in public places

Prostitution would almost completely vanish overnight if such a law were implemented and enforced swiftly and painfully.

 

[Idolater]

Prostitution should be a criminal offense, punishable by flogging.

From America's Criminal Code:

You shall not commit adultery. - Judges will execute those convicted of bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16); those convicted of incest including with in-laws (Lev. 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-21); of homosexual acts (Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13); of child molestation; of kidnapping or rape (Ex. 21:15-16; Deut. 22:25-27; 24:7); and of adultery with a married woman (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Ex. 20:14). - Judges will flog those convicted of fornication; of public use of vulgar sexual and excretory language; of sexually suggestive dress or behavior; of intoxication; and of possession of pornography. - Judges will flog more severely those convicted of transvestism; of public nudity; and of distributing pornography. - And judges will flog more severely still those convicted of prostitution; of producing pornography for any use; and of sexual acts in public places

Prostitution would almost completely vanish overnight if such a law were implemented and enforced swiftly and painfully.

You have a very violent mind. I love guns, but you're way more violent than me.

 

[Idolater]

This one's from an oldish thread that I don't want to muck up anymore than I already have:

It would be fascinating to see what A.I. thinks about systematic theology. It wouldn't obligate anybody, it would just be interesting, like how before every Super Bowl they have "Madden" (an American football simulator video game) play the upcoming NFL championship game, to see who wins according to the video game simulator. It's not going to affect the actual game, but it's perhaps something to chew on. I mean if Madden predicts a blowout, does that give you pause?

This O.P. (on the same topic as the above) has so many good questions which I would expect generative chat A.I. to answer well, to at least give us all pause, I'm just going to break them up one by one, imagine what A.I. would say:

How many different ways could one interpret the scriptures?

Does interpretation come from God or from man?

Why does this make a difference?

Is the literal translation the only one with merit? Why or why not?

Who holds the power to declare which interpretation is most appropriate?

Can one interpretation be more correct or more accurate than another?

What evidence or support is available to suggest that an entity has the authority to determine which interpretation is valid and/or more valid than another?

Who is interpreting the evidence or support that is being used to come up with the original interpretation?

Does one interpretation have all the correct answers and if it doesn't, does that invalidate any of the viewpoints that do make sense?

Does any one interpretation make perfect sense?

What should we do if someone proposes an alternative interpretation that we know through discernment makes much more sense to us? Is it okay to continue believing one interpretation if we know there is a more accurate one available?

What would prevent us from accepting a more true interpretation of the scriptures were it to be presented to us?

It would be interesting to know what A.I. would think about all of this, if you feed it the whole Scripture, what's it going to say?

 

[JudgeRightly]

You have a very violent mind. I love guns, but you're way more violent than me.

Love of guns has nothing to do with this.

God is the one who instituted flogging as punishment for certain crimes, Idolater. Not me. Not Bob Enyart (who is the one who wrote the above). God.

He's also the one who came up with the "eye for eye, hand for hand, tooth for tooth" punishments.

In actuality, you're saying God is the one who has a "very violent mind."

In reality, you're just admitting that you're too nice to criminals, because you are saying GOD is way more violent than you are.

Don't be nicer than God, Idolater. It's a sin.

 

[Idolater]

Love of guns has nothing to do with this.

God is the one who instituted flogging as punishment for certain crimes, Idolater. Not me. Not Bob Enyart (who is the one who wrote the above). God.

He's also the one who came up with the "eye for eye, hand for hand, tooth for tooth" punishments.

In actuality, you're saying God is the one who has a "very violent mind."

No, I'm not. I love guns. They are the key to securing all our rights. But you are violent.

In reality, you're just admitting that you're too nice to criminals, because you are saying GOD is way more violent than you are.

Don't be nicer than God, Idolater. It's a sin.

 

[Idolater]

Thread

Lent is ungodly and sinful​

Good thread, good question, good case made by O.P. (He still around?)

Once a year you choose to give up, for a brief period, something you normally enjoy. In and of itself, that's neither good nor bad.

It's interpreted more recently to include adding something you don't normally do also, instead of giving up something, sometimes.

Like you add doing morning prayers, or something like that.

But if you're honest, you who observe Lent will explain and justify your observance with one or more of the following:

a. it gives you that sense of quiet pride and self-satisfaction (aka self-righteousness) when you hint to others what you're giving up, as some have already trumpeted here on TOL,

Only speaking for my personal experience as a Catholic, I detect none of this among the other Catholics I know personally. I also don't detect it among the many public Catholics who have public platform presences like publications and podcasts.

b. you're just bowing to social pressure from religious others who'd frown on you not playing along, or

This is definitely I think, a thing, among the Catholics I know and among public Catholics. I think the obligation to fast and abstain during Lent is to many Catholics the same obligation as avoiding grave sins like adultery and not going to Mass on holy days of obligation.

Although in the case of the "frowning on you," that's not really the same thing, as in Catholicism our private morality is maintained on the "honorly system." We don't judge one another on our behavior, at least not without maybe broaching going to confession. To get a c. "boost" of grace.

So maybe this is after all just a Protestant thing.

c. you think it makes you more holy and acceptable to God.

I mean, if you mean here getting out of Purgatory earlier, I guess so?

d. Probably some mix of the three.

Also, that Lent is temporary (once a year, briefly) is hypocritical...if something's a big enough deal to surrender "for God" once annually, how do you justify indulging it the rest of the year? Is God really going to be impressed because you give up bon-bons or R-rated movies for a several weeks? Lent is purely of the flesh -- substantially no different in motive than Muslims gorging themselves at night during their days of their "holy" fasts.

Disagreed. Number one, why not all year? For the same reason that if you're not a professional athlete you're not going to train all year like you are one. But is it healthy to train like an athlete for like 40 days a year? you bet your life it is. It's way better than zero days a year.

And number two, it's the opposite of indulging the flesh, although I know you're trying to draw a parallel between mortifying your desires and indulging them, since they're both of the flesh, then they're in the same zone, I do get that. I'm just saying No. When you're denying yourself during fasting and abstinence you're getting hold of your flesh in a way that makes you freer as a human person. You're not as led around by the nose by your appetites.

Without fleshly, physical disciplines like fasting and abstinence you can't be as healthy as someone who works out 40 days a year, for years on end, compared to if you work out zero days a year for years on end. That's just obv going to have different outcomes.

So let's call Lent what it actually is: a man-pleasing, God-impressing, self-centered holiday to indulge the flesh under the guise of denying the flesh. It's plain old hypocritical pride -- just like the Pharisees of old whitening their faces during fasts and blowing trumpets when they toss pennies to the poor, all in order to appear more sincere and to impress the rubes with their devoutness.

That's you when you observe Lent.

There is no motivation you can come up with for Lent, as it is practiced, that will justify it as acceptable to God.

That depends on whether it's grave matter to fail to satisfy the Lenten obligations of fasting and abstinence. If it is, then you're at least not completely wrong. It depends a lot on whether it's grave matter, because that raises Lent to the level of liturgy, and afaik liturgy is limited to the Sacraments, which means obligatory Mass and maintaining a state of grace through fleeing grave matter and going to confession.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, I'm not. I love guns. They are the key to securing all our rights.

Again, irrelevant to the topic of prostitution being a crime.

You do not have the right to sell someone's body, including your own, for sex, for sex is to be between one man and one woman, in a committed marriage relationship. Any other time, it's sexual immorality. You cannot rightly legitimize (make legal) something that is immoral.

But you are violent.

Saying it doesn't make it so.