Ask Aphrodite (and her sex slaves) your questions about sexual immorality~

[Jeffster]

There aren't that many threads on this forum these days that actually get me to stop and read the whole thing, but this one did. Good job on making this interesting.

 

[sorenx7]

Precisely. Gambling feeds a whole host of other activities and becomes a hub for things that distance yourself from God.. Even if you don't have an addiction to gambling and are capable of playing for the fun of playing, the activity is all about greed.. which is a cardinal sin. If sins were people, they'd frequent casinos. Classy example: Sin City is the nickname for Las Vegas, the city with more casinos than anywhere in the US.

And pornography is a staple of Lust. You're enjoying, and entertaining the idea of, sex with anyone but your spouse. The general degradation of women and men in the industry is bad enough (whether they feel they're being degraded or not... most people would NOT sell their bodies for movie-making money.. which is enough to elude to it being sinful and shameful) but you completely take your lusts and throw them at random strangers, even if those strangers are on a picture.. You're completely okay with someone's daughter being used and filmed.. and I'll bet any man here would not want that to happen to their daughters..

I think this is an excellent post. I might not completely agree with the gambling part. I see nothing wrong with buying a lottery ticket from time to time. I never have, but mostly because it isn't convenient for me. However, I think I probably agree with everything you said about the negative effects of porn.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Props to everyone for being so polite here, making a thread like this on most any other forum (including other typology ones) would incite all sorts of people to attack you and expound upon how much of a 'brainless hick' you are, since they are defending their view of promiscuity as being 'freedom' and cannot/will not conceive of how anyone could ever possibly think otherwise. You don't have to throw logic out the window to think it is wrong; too many people think that logic and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

Thank you. And too many people think that Christianity needs to be prude and boring as well. I'm a Christian and I don't think I'm prude or boring.

Anyways, if you want to understand the Mosaic law and its purpose better, read this, though it is pretty long.

http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament

Here are two sections I think are especially relevant to some of the recent questions here:

THANK YOU SO MUCH!! This is just what I've been searching for. I might even copy down that first part into my prayer journal. I had a little bit of issue with the second part, however. The part about comparing us to Canada, for one. Jesus is God and so following God's commands whether Jesus comes or not is not the same as moving to a different nation with different sovereignty.

I like that Jesus came to fulfill the law for us. And I like knowing that God gave those 613 laws to Israel to stay pure and cohesive, and that they cannot be reproduced outside Israeli tribes of Jews. But I also see somewhat of a shirking and vagueness about saying:

3. Against such, i.e., the fruit of the Spirit, there is no law because the believer is then operating under the highest law, the standards are met as we walk by the Holy Spirit and grow in the Word (Gal. 5:22).

Unless you are very committed and walking with God, in which case you are probably following at least the commandments, I find it essentially impossible for a believer to have no law, and just to be under 'the grace of God.' People need a framework because we live in fleshly bodies in sinful world ruled by the prince of the air (satan). Heck, to do good works and keep agape love active in your life, you even need to read the scriptures everyday, or contemplate/meditate upon God daily. I don't see the average person being able to do this without having law to follow. It might not be necessary for a few healthy cognizant individuals who have been raised in a Godly and loving home, but for most of us, we need something more to lean on to do well and grow and bear tasty fruit.

There aren't that many threads on this forum these days that actually get me to stop and read the whole thing, but this one did. Good job on making this interesting.

Thank you! So glad you likey.

Precisely. Gambling feeds a whole host of other activities and becomes a hub for things that distance yourself from God.. Even if you don't have an addiction to gambling and are capable of playing for the fun of playing, the activity is all about greed.. which is a cardinal sin. If sins were people, they'd frequent casinos. Classy example: Sin City is the nickname for Las Vegas, the city with more casinos than anywhere in the US.

And pornography is a staple of Lust. You're enjoying, and entertaining the idea of, sex with anyone but your spouse. The general degradation of women and men in the industry is bad enough (whether they feel they're being degraded or not... most people would NOT sell their bodies for movie-making money.. which is enough to elude to it being sinful and shameful) but you completely take your lusts and throw them at random strangers, even if those strangers are on a picture.. You're completely okay with someone's daughter being used and filmed.. and I'll bet any man here would not want that to happen to their daughters..

Great post on porn.

Are cardinal sins to be avoided? *skips off to google cardinal sins*

 

[kyuuei]

I think this is an excellent post. I might not completely agree with the gambling part. I see nothing wrong with buying a lottery ticket from time to time. I never have, but mostly because it isn't convenient for me. However, I think I probably agree with everything you said about the negative effects of porn.

The whole thing feeds into greed, but we still have greed in our hearts.. we just temper it as best we can. For some, a lottery ticket quenches the thirst for greed while being relatively harmless. We aren't without sin, so we as humans sort of pick and choose the sins we're okay with committing and those we are not. That money could be better spent elsewhere, but instead it is going towards potentially winning a lot of money for yourself. I think the line between gambling and fun is when it involves yourself vs others. Ideally, you're self-sustaining already when helping others, so excess can be easily manifested as greed.

Like I, for example, acknowledged all of those horrid aspects of pornography.. yet, I've partaken in it before, and will continue to do so. In my head, I alone will not stop the machine of the industry, nor will I see it stopped in my lifetime, so I'd rather pick and choose my battles elsewhere.

But then again, this is Christian based philosophy coming from a non-Christian, so take what I say with a grain of salt. [MENTION=4212]Peguy[/MENTION] is way better equipped for these topics.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

And now to confuse things a bit more:

From wiki:

The seven deadly sins, also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, is a classification of objectionable vices (part of Christian ethics) that have been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct Christians concerning fallen humanity's tendency to sin. The currently recognized version of the sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

In the Book of Proverbs (Mishlai), among the verses traditionally associated with King Solomon, it states that the Lord specifically regards "six things the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth." namely:[4]
A proud look.
A lying tongue.
Hands that shed innocent blood.
A heart that devises wicked plots.
Feet that are swift to run into mischief.
A deceitful witness that uttereth lies.
Him that soweth discord among brethren.

While there are seven of them, this list is considerably different from the traditional one, with only pride clearly being in both lists.
Another list, given this time by the Epistle to the Galatians (Galatians 5:19-21), includes more of the traditional seven sins, although the list is substantially longer: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, "and such like".[5] Since Saint Paul goes on to say that the persons who commit these sins "shall not inherit the Kingdom of God", they are usually listed as (possible) mortal sins rather than Capital Vices.

So it appears that the traditional "7 deadly sins as we know them" are more Catholic, and not necessarily biblical.

Geez. It seems Catholics follow more of their own made-up doctrine than that in the bible. No wonder Catholics and Anglicans don't use the bible very much during church services.

 

[Sniffles]

Gambling is not necessarily a sin, unless it's done in excess and or causes scandal(ie leads you into committing sin). If it was a sin altogether, then how on earth can churches hold bingo nights?

 

[sorenx7]

The whole thing feeds into greed, but we still have greed in our hearts.. we just temper it as best we can. For some, a lottery ticket quenches the thirst for greed while being relatively harmless. We aren't without sin, so we as humans sort of pick and choose the sins we're okay with committing and those we are not. That money could be better spent elsewhere, but instead it is going towards potentially winning a lot of money for yourself. I think the line between gambling and fun is when it involves yourself vs others. Ideally, you're self-sustaining already when helping others, so excess can be easily manifested as greed.

Like I, for example, acknowledged all of those horrid aspects of pornography.. yet, I've partaken in it before, and will continue to do so. In my head, I alone will not stop the machine of the industry, nor will I see it stopped in my lifetime, so I'd rather pick and choose my battles elsewhere.

But then again, this is Christian based philosophy coming from a non-Christian, so take what I say with a grain of salt. [MENTION=4212]Peguy[/MENTION] is way better equipped for these topics.

It's like reading Arthur Schopenhauer. Although he was an atheist, sometimes there is more to learn from him about Christianity than from Christians writing about ethics. I'm a Christian and he may even be my favorite author, period.

 

[Sniffles]

Geez. It seems Catholics follow more of their own made-up doctrine than that in the bible. No wonder Catholics and Anglicans don't use the bible very much during church services.

I guess you're right, we don't use the Bible too much. Except for the Epistle readings, the Gospel reading, the Lord's Prayer, the Eucharist, the last gospel; but yeah other than that, we don't use the Bible at all.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

^Yeh, yeh. I know. But it's not quoted as heavily as in *what's the word for 'other' churches*?

 

[Sniffles]

^Yeh, yeh. I know. But it's not quoted as heavily as in *what's the word for 'other' churches*?

Such as? I attend Protestant services, and while there is greater focus on the sermon as opposed to the Eucharist, I don't see a significant difference between the amount of scripture cited, except Lutherans include an Old Testament reading alongside the Epistle and Gospel readings.

 

[sorenx7]

And now to confuse things a bit more:

From wiki:



So it appears that the traditional "7 deadly sins as we know them" are more Catholic, and not necessarily biblical.

Geez. It seems Catholics follow more of their own made-up doctrine than that in the bible. No wonder Catholics and Anglicans don't use the bible very much during church services.

I'm not Catholic, but even if they might make up their doctrine sometimes that couldn't be any worse than others saying they're following the Bible but misinterpreting what it actually says. This seems to be pretty common, in my opinion.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Such as? I attend Protestant services, and while there is greater focus on the sermon as opposed to the Eucharist, I don't see a significant difference between the amount of scripture cited, except Lutherans include an Old Testament reading alongside the Epistle and Gospel readings.

Well, I currently attend a non-denominational church and an episcopal church (and grew up attending episcopal church), and I never realized the bible was involved in church, except for maybe one or two scriptures quoted. The non-denominational church I attend is ALL about the bible, as in the pastor preaches right out of it, and quotes it a multitude of times, makes his sermon around it, etc.

I'd love to see a church combine the two types of worship: The lengthy, informative bible-laden sermon with the eucharist. Is that so much to ask? Until then, I will just go to both.



If there were a church continuum and the catholic church was at one end, what church would be at the other end? And where would all the other religions fall inbetween? And what would the ones toward the opposite end of the continuum from the cath/epis/luth churches be called? The ones who don't participate in the weekly eucharist (is that communion?). My lingo is pathetic. I'd like to be taught this by someone.



Catholicism------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------?

 

[PeaceBaby]

Well, I currently attend a non-denominational church and an episcopal church (and grew up attending episcopal church), and I never realized the bible was involved in church, except for maybe one or two scriptures quoted.

So you attended an episcopal church and didn't realize that the readings you heard were from the Bible? And that the minister based his or her sermon on those readings? And that the Sunday School lessons were based on those Bible readings too?

True you don't see many episcopal folks actually pick up the Bible in church, but everything that happens each day and each season is based on the Bible readings as set out in the Lectionary. Two bible readings, the Gospel and a psalm.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

So you attended an episcopal church and didn't realize that the readings you heard were from the Bible? And that the minister based his or her sermon on those readings? And that the Sunday School lessons were based on those Bible readings too?

True you don't see many episcopal folks actually pick up the Bible in church, but everything that happens each day and each season is based on the Bible readings as set out in the Lectionary. Two bible readings, the Gospel and a psalm.

Yes, I did. But not in such a way as that the bible was the Word of God or should be the main focus of study. You went to church, and said everything about of the prayer book and the insert. Yes, the scriptures (the few used) were quoted but were such a small part of what was iterated that it isn't surprising that a child would not have a knowledge of the bible being the main source. Then as I got older, I just thought going through the motions every week was good enough. And the 5-10 minute boring sermon was usually non-applicable.

I don't think this is too far off others' experience, Peace.

 

[Sniffles]

I'd love to see a church combine the two types of worship: The lengthy, informative bible-laden sermon with the eucharist. Is that so much to ask? Until then, I will just go to both.

Stereotypically, ex-Episcopalians just become Orthodox and chant Scriptures.

 

[kyuuei]

I regularly attend non-denominational, Lutheran, Catholic, Older style Catholic (where they still do the whole thing in Latin), Protestant, and Baptist services.. I honestly see a huge difference in the style in which they present the material, but the only thing that unites them at all is the Bible itself. They all agree on that book, if nothing else, which is why it is so easy to attend any Christian church and get the same core information out of it.

They only focus on 1-2 quotes and principles at a time and go in depth because people are stupid. No offense to the world, or anything. They don't really have long attention spans, and if they were interested in the reading the material in length they'd probably do it themselves on their own time and terms. They want to learn juuust a little bit, in a childish manner that they can grasp and hold onto. So one or two quotes that resemble the same materials given in a flashy and catchy speech (however your definition of flashy and catchy is) is part of what Priests and ministers do for the people of the church. They teach the people, and cater their teachings to the people. It isn't that they don't bust the whole book out because they don't want to--its typically because the people don't really want them to and they comply with that.

All you need to start a church is The Bible and people willing to listen to it. That's it. Yet, powerpoint, projectors, choirs, ministers, and all the other bells and whistles are there anyways. Sure, you don't NEED a new appliance, but if it works better why not get it? A Minister knows more than the average joe-shmoe, and he can translate the words in the Bible much better than a Mr. Normal Guy. You get more out of it when you have a proper teacher. And when you have lessons broken up over time. That's typical of all lessons in life..

 

[Sniffles]

Older style Catholic (where they still do the whole thing in Latin)

It's called the Tridentine Mass.

 

[cascadeco]

Yes, I did. But not in such a way as that the bible was the Word of God or should be the main focus of study. You went to church, and said everything about of the prayer book and the insert. Yes, the scriptures (the few used) were quoted but were such a small part of what was iterated that it isn't surprising that a child would not have a knowledge of the bible being the main source. Then as I got older, I just thought going through the motions every week was good enough. And the 5-10 minute boring sermon was usually non-applicable.

I don't think this is too far off others' experience, Peace.

The 'non-denominational' churches are a new sort of church in this day and age, and they're each probably pretty different in application and interpretation of the Bible. I think one thing they have in common is they tend to be more 'flashy', with more modern music styles (they are all trying to appeal to a younger generation) and also I think a lot more appeal to peoples' emotions. Some of the really large ones seem more like corporations, imo, which is... something I won't comment on here.

I was raised ELCA lutheran, and also I have attended a few catholic and episcopal churches in the past. I agree many of these services are more rote, and tend to be pretty uninspirational for children. But, even as you cite your experience with 5-10 minute sermons being inapplicable, as with all churches and pastors out there, it's highly dependent on the church and the pastor as to the sermons preached. Although I am not a Christian any longer, I can think of many pastors whose sermons were very applicable and full of wisdom; and, other pastors who just didn't reach me/ I didn't care for (although they probably reached a different set of personalities).

Having attended these, as well as non-denominational churches for a few years many years ago, if I were to ever attend church again in the future, I'd without question go back to the protestant churches and I would not even set foot in a non-denominational. The 'danger' of the non-denominationals is that while as you say, they tend to lean much more heavily on the Bible in their services , for that very reason many go the direction of taking the Bible so literally and out of context that they become so narrowly focused so as to obliterate everything else but their narrow interpretation (as, with every non-denom interpreting the Bible in their own light, you could go to any number of non-denoms and be given a slightly different twist on what the Bible's saying and what the Word of God actually is, and some non-denoms will have people throwing themselves onto the floor in 'rapture' and others are more, well, normal).

otoh, regarding the piece I underlined, I'm not certain in reality how accurate that impression is: I almost think the same amount of bible verses are utilized in a typical service in each type of church, but the manner of interpretation, as well as non-denoms in many cases being more apt to also lean on books of the bible that are viewed in a more metaphorical sense by ELCA, Catholics, etc, and thus not focused on in these more established churches (i.e. Revelations as one), may be the main difference.

 

[cafe]

Well, I currently attend a non-denominational church and an episcopal church (and grew up attending episcopal church), and I never realized the bible was involved in church, except for maybe one or two scriptures quoted. The non-denominational church I attend is ALL about the bible, as in the pastor preaches right out of it, and quotes it a multitude of times, makes his sermon around it, etc.

I'd love to see a church combine the two types of worship: The lengthy, informative bible-laden sermon with the eucharist. Is that so much to ask? Until then, I will just go to both.



If there were a church continuum and the catholic church was at one end, what church would be at the other end? And where would all the other religions fall inbetween? And what would the ones toward the opposite end of the continuum from the cath/epis/luth churches be called? The ones who don't participate in the weekly eucharist (is that communion?). My lingo is pathetic. I'd like to be taught this by someone.



Catholicism------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------?

My background is (Trinity) Pentecostal and Independent Baptist. I've also attended Nondenominational and Wesleyan churches. They usually call eucharist communion. My denomination considers it and water baptism (by dunking) to be the only two sacraments. We actually used to be racially integrated, but supposedly we split over whether or not foot washing should be considered a sacrament. The White denomination became the Assemblies of God and the Black denomination became the Church of God in Christ. Pretty silly, IMO. Probably the White people didn't want to wash Black people's feet or something.

Anyway, my church and most of the churches I've attended usually do communion on the first Sunday of the month. I was planning on skipping those Sundays, but the pastor (my brother) tricked me last time by holding communion on the last Sunday of November.

 

[cafe]

The 'non-denominational' churches are a new sort of church in this day and age, and they're each probably pretty different in application and interpretation of the Bible. I think one thing they have in common is they tend to be more 'flashy', with more modern music styles (they are all trying to appeal to a younger generation) and also I think a lot more appeal to peoples' emotions. Some of the really large ones seem more like corporations, imo, which is... something I won't comment on here.

I was raised ELCA lutheran, and also I have attended a few catholic and episcopal churches in the past. I agree many of these services are more rote, and tend to be pretty uninspirational for children. But, even as you cite your experience with 5-10 minute sermons being inapplicable, as with all churches and pastors out there, it's highly dependent on the church and the pastor as to the sermons preached. Although I am not a Christian any longer, I can think of many pastors whose sermons were very applicable and full of wisdom; and, other pastors who just didn't reach me/ I didn't care for (although they probably reached a different set of personalities).

Having attended these, as well as non-denominational churches for a few years many years ago, if I were to ever attend church again in the future, I'd without question go back to the protestant churches and I would not even set foot in a non-denominational. The 'danger' of the non-denominationals is that while as you say, they tend to lean much more heavily on the Bible in their services , for that very reason many go the direction of taking the Bible so literally and out of context that they become so narrowly focused so as to obliterate everything else but their narrow interpretation (as, with every non-denom interpreting the Bible in their own light, you could go to any number of non-denoms and be given a slightly different twist on what the Bible's saying and what the Word of God actually is, and some non-denoms will have people throwing themselves onto the floor in 'rapture' and others are more, well, normal).

I agree with all this, but in my denomination, "being slain in the spirit" is a perfectly normal and expected occurrence. So is speaking in tongues. When I was a kid, people would fall out, hit their heads on a pew or something on the way down, and get up later not knowing they'd hit anything. Now, because of insurance and lawsuits and stuff, they generally have "catchers" in prayer lines where people are most likely to fall out. They used to keep clothes by the altar to cover the legs of women that fell out so they could concentrate on the Lord instead of thinking about whether their dress had rode up. Some churches still do this, but I don't think they know where the tradition came from because they cover the legs of people wearing pants.