Sex (Yet another split topic)

[Tom62]

That wasn't my point.  YOU are aware of it and it's the YOU that I am concerned with not the other person.  I am not speaking of you directly just in the figurative sense in the story.  Sin begins and ends in the heart not the action was my point.

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).  Everything that makes us human, like being able to think or fantasise, is absolutely normal.

Which thoughts arrive in your mind depends on your state of mind at that moment. For example when I'm stressed and someone "pisses me off" then I'm more likely to think that "that person should have himself removed from the human genome" then when I'm relaxed. If I'd see a beautiful girl walking, it is naturally that the thoughts in my mind reflects the beauty of what I see. These thought are absolutely normal, cannot be controlled and have absolutely nothing to do with sin.

[iplaw]

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily.

If you are talking about sin the Biblical sense you are wrong; Christ explicitly stated that if you committ adultery in your heart with a woman it's as if you did it in the flesh.  If you're not speaking of sin in the Biblical sense then the term only carries your meaning, there is no reason to even label it as such any more.  

Which thoughts arrive in your mind depends on your state of mind at that moment.

Yes. And it's a non sequitor to the arguments I made previously.

These thought are absolutely normal, cannot be controlled and have absolutely nothing to do with sin

Let me see if I can beat that dead horse yet again.  The inital thoughts are NOT WRONG the meditation upon that thought to turn it into a fanasty WOULD BE.  This is a huge difference.  

If I see a beautiful woman and I think "what a beautiful woman damn she's hot."  THAT'S NOT WRONG.  If I take it to the next step and begin to dwell on it and think about what it would be like to have sex with her that would most definitely be considered sin in the Biblical sense.

[Asmodean Prime]

I agree with you, iplaw, as I stated somewhere in an earlier post.  Can't remember where it was, though.

Also, Tom62 wrote: Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense

If you take the biblical view of sin (and what other view is there, since atheists don't believe in sin, as such), then this is not correct.  According to the bible, sin is a rebellious act committed against God, not man, hence the bible verses "against thee, against thee only have I sinned", and "Only God can forgive sin".  I think there is a distinction though between sins committed against 'us', which we are expressely told to forgive, and those not against us, but against God, which only God can forgive.  

We must forgive sins committed against 'us'.  All other sins can only be forgiven by God.

[Court]

[color=#] [/color] Several years ago when I was a catholic christian, I began suffering from severe RA in my hips and knees.  I would have horrible flares that would make it very difficult for me to walk/stand/sit comfortably. During these flares I would spend a lot time in bed in pain. These times were incredibly painful, frustrating, and left me with a lot of depression.  One of the only things that would lift my spirits/make the pain less perceivable was masturbation.  And I would put myself in a guilty hell over doing it because I saw myself as a nice christian girl who shouldn't do such things.  During this painful time, I would also pray(in tongues, no less) for hours and hours to God for him to aleviate my pain/heal me and to please forgive me for my masturbation.  Well the healing never happened because as we all know, sky daddy doesn't heal even amputees.  Years later, I am still suffering from RA.  But the good that came from being bedridden like that was that I began to question what kind of "real" god would allow me to be in that type of pain and then frown on what I did to relieve my pain.  From there, I began questioning all aspects of my faith from why are there so many discrepancies in the Bible to are we really drinking Jesus's blood during communion.  I am now a nonbeliever and have never been happier.

I'm sorry that it took such a horrific experience for you to deconvert, but I'm glad you've come over to the side of rationality. Congrats on kicking that christian guilt and despair....

[Court]

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily.

If you are talking about sin the Biblical sense you are wrong; Christ explicitly stated that if you committ adultery in your heart with a woman it's as if you did it in the flesh.  If you're not speaking of sin in the Biblical sense then the term only carries your meaning, there is no reason to even label it as such any more.  

Iplaw's right, in the biblical sense, this statement is wrong. A better word may have been "crime." I do agree with Tom, however, that the idea of "sin" against oneself, is ridiculous nonsense. It's simply the christian morality further controlling the masses by making them feel guilty for things they either cannot control (such as thoughts) or are completely natural (such as sex and masturbation).

[Asmodean Prime]

This is what I think, people.

On a basic level, whether you are a believer or not, is it such a bad thing to feel guilt and remorse for doing things or thinking things which Christians generally class as 'sins'?

Is it such a bad thing to feel guilt about coveting your neighbours wife?  Or stealing, or lying, or hurting other people?  I think that these general Christian guidelines for living, if adhered to in a truly heartfelt sense, would make for a better, fairer society.  The only other alternative is a moral 'free for all', where no one considers themselves accountable, except to themselves, which is a selfish and very damaging attitude to take, in my view, since everybody will have a different view as to what should be considered acceptable.  Some people wouldn't even consider other people's feelings at all, but just subscribe to the 'look after no.1' mentality.  Surely it's better to have a set of standards that apply to everybody?

[Court]

This is what I think, people.

On a basic level, whether you are a believer or not, is it such a bad thing to feel guilt and remorse for doing things or thinking things which Christians generally class as 'sins'?

Is it such a bad thing to feel guilt about coveting your neighbours wife?  Or stealing, or lying, or hurting other people?  I think that these general Christian guidelines for living, if adhered to in a truly heartfelt sense, would make for a better, fairer society.  The only other alternative is a moral 'free for all', where no one considers themselves accountable, except to themselves, which is a selfish and very damaging attitude to take, in my view, since everybody will have a different view as to what should be considered acceptable.  Some people wouldn't even consider other people's feelings at all, but just subscribe to the 'look after no.1' mentality.  Surely it's better to have a set of standards that apply to everybody?

Oh, are those the only parts of christian morality? I'm not saying that all parts of christian morality are bad or objectionable.
For example, the fact that the bible is so 100% against lying, while not surprising, is questionable to me. I don't think lying is always bad.
Obviously, I disagree with the sexual "morals" of christianity.
I also disagree with the intolerance the bible spouts.
And I think that humanity would do fine with its own, not-handed-down-by-a-"higher power" morality. In fact, it would probably consist of some of the same things as christian morality, especially some of the more universal principles (such as the ones you mentioned). We don't need a god to have standards, onlyme, although that is a common misperception.

The only other alternative is a moral 'free for all', where no one considers themselves accountable, except to themselves, which is a selfish and very damaging attitude to take, in my view, since everybody will have a different view as to what should be considered acceptable.
This statement is simply false. There are not only two alternatives: christianity and a "moral free for all." There are millions of people and societies worldwide that do not believe in christianity. Are they living in social dysfunction? No. In fact, studies have shown that the more secular a developed country is, the lower rates of teen pregnancy, STDs, drug use, crime, etc. it has. The correlation (although, I admit, this doesn't indicate what causes what) is that christianity and social dysfunction go hand-in-hand.

On a basic level, whether you are a believer or not, is it such a bad thing to feel guilt and remorse for doing things or thinking things which Christians generally class as 'sins'?
Yes. I think it is incredibly unhealthy, to reference what we've been discussing on this thread, to feel guilt and remores for having sex and/or masturbating.

[iplaw]

We don't need a god to have standards, onlyme, although that is a common misperception.

This opens up a HUGE can of worms and may demand the need for a new thread in the Philosophy section.  Though I don't know what good it will do since humans have been debating this for about a billion years.

[Jassman]

Nice strawman, onlyme. No one is arguing whether stealing or hurting people is wrong. We are talking about thoughts being processed in one's mind. Not real actions that do actually hurt other people. But I think you know that. It seems whenever someone from a perspective that is not your own makes a good point, you go with the "ignore" method and completely misrepresent them in your reply.

Reread the entire thread. The content of your post has already been dealt with. Please try to keep up with the conversation. No one is arguing for a moral "free for all".

[iplaw]

It's simply the christian morality further controlling the masses by making them feel guilty for things they either cannot control (such as thoughts)

For the LAST TIME christianity does not consider INITIAL THOUGHTS as sinful anywhere in scripture, only one's which are DWELT UPON or MEDITATED UPON.  I can't believe this distinction is that hard to grasp.  There is a huge difference between having a thought and pondering the thought.  Having the thought may or may not be controllable.  Pondering or meditating on that thought is ENTIRELY within our control.

[Jassman]

I tend to agree with you iplaw (as far as Christian morality goes, not on what is right/wrong with this subject). But do you have any Bible verses that support this claim?

[Asmodean Prime]

Jassman and court

maybe a moral free for all is not the only possible alternative, but what then would you replace it with, if not Christian values?  Is there another set standard, recognised by the majority, which could replace it?

[Big Mac]

It's still stupid, I can't believe it's hard for you to grasp that we find a God who gives us a neural reflex on things would be so cruel as to tell us dwelling on something is a sin. You need to get off your little Christian Throne and stop acting so high and mighty. WE GET THE FUCKING CONCEPT, IT"S JUST YOUR GOD AND HIS LAWS ARE VERY STUPID AND SADISTIC!

I can't believe you're a lawyer, must be one of those infomercial ones that wear a cowboy hat. In fact, you're nickname from me will be Tex. Is that alright, Tex? No? I'm not losing sleep over it.

[Jassman]

The current values of the majority of people. My morals are not based on Christianity yet I still share many of the same opinions regarding murder, theft, etc... Remember, most of our countries were not founded on Christian law. How many of the 10 Commandments are actually illegal in the UK?

[iplaw]

1.  It was clearly stated that Christ was tempted in all ways as we are yet he was without sin.  Clearly he had thoughts that would have tempted him but he did not act on them, else he would have comitted sin.

2.  â€œYou have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I think its fairly easy to deduce that "looking at a woman lustfully" logically includes more than a simple innocent thought but a deliberate meditative mental action.  In fact the word used was "Blepo" which is defined as to turn the thoughts or direct the mind to a thing, to consider, contemplate, to look at, to weigh carefully, examine.