Is it sin?

[kjw47]

I don't believe you, what objective evidence can you demonstrate beyond this risible unevidenced assertion?



I don't believe you, what objective evidence can you demonstrate beyond this risible unevidenced assertion?



Not at all, you're simply making up unevidenced claims based on archaic superstition.



Unevidenced gibberish sorry.

Since you have shown nothing but absolute opposition, There is 0 sense having conversations with you. You are just here to be a terrorist to those that know God. Have a good life Mr Sheldon. Very sad you ask for proof. When God shows you, you will not like it..

 

[DNB]

Dude, you do realise that the term "spirituality" means "the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things" right?

Your view of what is spiritual only applies to your religious bubble. Other religions do not live in that bubble. They have their own concept of spirituality. So when I say I explore, I am researching all of these kinds, alot of which contradicts yours. And in most spiritual teachings, the concept of sin does not exist.

Spirituality, among many other things, discerns what is edifying for the spirit, that is, one's character.
It also has established the existence of the source for such a notion as spiritualism - God, who is both spirit and holy.
It also perceives the spiritual realm where certain forces are conducting a warfare here on earth.
It also recognizes that the spirit is meant to transcend the flesh and all it's vices - you, on the other hand, seem to be oblivious to all or most of these maxims.

 

[Sheldon]

Since you have shown nothing but absolute opposition,

it seems you don't understand the fundamental difference between asking you to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence to support your tediously endless list of unevidenced assertions, and opposing them. Ordinarily I might be minded to help disavow such idiocy, but your bigotry leaves me disinclined to do so.

There is 0 sense having conversations with you.

Finally you seem to have made a factually correct statement, though I'd bet a years salary you don't understand why, or see the irony of your claim.

You are just here to be a terrorist to those that know God.

It seems we can add terrorist to the ever growing list of words you don't understand the meaning of, and if you know anything, beyond how to post tedious vapid sermons, then you have manifestly failed to demonstrate that here.

Have a good life Mr Sheldon.

Well it's not quite over yet, but if it were to end tomorrow I think it would be churlish of me to complain.

Very sad you ask for proof.

I have never once asked for proof, if only you could read and comprehend English as readily as you can use it to create vapid sermons.

When God shows you, you will not like it..

How fitting you end with an openly vengeful threat, of the violence to come so many loving Christians enjoy contemplating for others, it seems the succour of their beliefs doesn't quite hack it when others don't share them. I may cite this the next time someone is extolling their deity of endless love. Though how fitting also, that you end with yet another vapid unevidenced claim, and don't see how meaningless it is to aim this kind of verbiage at an atheist. I fear Hell as much as I fear being gored by an angry unicorn, or being dragged to a watery grave by a nefarious mermaid, and for precisely the same reason. A reason it seems that entirely escapes you.

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur".

 

[Samael_Khan]

Spirituality, among many other things, discerns what is edifying for the spirit, that is, one's character.
It also has established the existence of the source for such a notion as spiritualism - God, who is both spirit and holy.
It also perceives the spiritual realm where certain forces are conducting a warfare here on earth.
It also recognizes that the spirit is meant to transcend the flesh and all it's vices - you, on the other hand, seem to be oblivious to all or most of these maxims.

That is spirituality according to your religion, not others. That is what you do not understand.

So when I say that I am exploring spirituality, that means that I am studying all concepts of it, from varying perspectives, from various religions. You want me to think of spirituality just from a Christian perspective, and I will not do that.

 

[Sheldon]

Spirituality, among many other things, discerns what is edifying for the spirit, that is, one's character.
It also has established the existence of the source for such a notion as spiritualism - God, who is both spirit and holy.
It also perceives the spiritual realm where certain forces are conducting a warfare here on earth.
It also recognizes that the spirit is meant to transcend the flesh and all it's vices - you, on the other hand, seem to be oblivious to all or most of these maxims.

It is also entirely unsupported by even a shred of objective evidence.

 

[kjw47]

it seems you don't understand the fundamental difference between asking you to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence to support your tediously endless list of unevidenced assertions, and opposing them. Ordinarily I might be minded to help disavow such idiocy, but your bigotry leaves me disinclined to do so.



Finally you seem to have made a factually correct statement, though I'd bet a years salary you don't understand why, or see the irony of your claim.



It seems we can add terrorist to the ever growing list of words you don't understand the meaning of, and if you know anything, beyond how to post tedious vapid sermons, then you have manifestly failed to demonstrate that here.




Well it's not quite over yet, but if it were to end tomorrow I think it would be churlish of me to complain.



I have never once asked for proof, if only you could read and comprehend English as readily as you can use it to create vapid sermons.



How fitting you end with an openly vengeful threat, of the violence to come so many loving Christians enjoy contemplating for others, it seems the succour of their beliefs doesn't quite hack it when others don't share them. I may cite this the next time someone is extolling their deity of endless love. Though how fitting also, that you end with yet another vapid unevidenced claim, and don't see how meaningless it is to aim this kind of verbiage at an atheist. I fear Hell as much as I fear being gored by an angry unicorn, or being dragged to a watery grave by a nefarious mermaid, and for precisely the same reason. A reason it seems that entirely escapes you.

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur".

I share facts not threats. Be good Mr Sheldon. The facts of God cannot be proved by another. Only God cad can prove them to you. That is by opening ones heart to him. So really its all on you. You refuse words, how would you like to be shown? I only have words.

 

[kjw47]

it seems you don't understand the fundamental difference between asking you to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence to support your tediously endless list of unevidenced assertions, and opposing them. Ordinarily I might be minded to help disavow such idiocy, but your bigotry leaves me disinclined to do so.



Finally you seem to have made a factually correct statement, though I'd bet a years salary you don't understand why, or see the irony of your claim.



It seems we can add terrorist to the ever growing list of words you don't understand the meaning of, and if you know anything, beyond how to post tedious vapid sermons, then you have manifestly failed to demonstrate that here.




Well it's not quite over yet, but if it were to end tomorrow I think it would be churlish of me to complain.



I have never once asked for proof, if only you could read and comprehend English as readily as you can use it to create vapid sermons.



How fitting you end with an openly vengeful threat, of the violence to come so many loving Christians enjoy contemplating for others, it seems the succour of their beliefs doesn't quite hack it when others don't share them. I may cite this the next time someone is extolling their deity of endless love. Though how fitting also, that you end with yet another vapid unevidenced claim, and don't see how meaningless it is to aim this kind of verbiage at an atheist. I fear Hell as much as I fear being gored by an angry unicorn, or being dragged to a watery grave by a nefarious mermaid, and for precisely the same reason. A reason it seems that entirely escapes you.

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur".

After carefully considering my knowledge of the bible, i have come up with a way i might be able to prove that Gods written word was by the inspiration of God. But you must do 1 thing first--Read Revelation 13-very symbolic, Few on earth can explain its meaning. I can with 6 english words. The world has watched these words come to pass for years. Yet they do not even know, only those with the real Jesus know by holy spirit.
Is this acceptable to you? It was written over 1850 years ago about todays world, all have seen it occur and is still occurring. Proving the words were inspired by God. This is the best i can do. You being a member of the human family, God doesnt desire even 1 to perish, and neither do i. Give me this one chance.

 

[DNB]

That is spirituality according to your religion, not others. That is what you do not understand.

So when I say that I am exploring spirituality, that means that I am studying all concepts of it, from varying perspectives, from various religions. You want me to think of spirituality just from a Christian perspective, and I will not do that.

I'm saying that the definition of spirit, is antithetical to that of the corporeal or the flesh, that is, the material realm.
This principle is fundamental and does not pertain to any specific religion, it is an objective and intrinsic fact.
Therefore, why you endorse hedonism is beyond me.

 

[DNB]

It is also entirely unsupported by even a shred of objective evidence.

Yes, that's why it's called a spirit, Einstein, it's unquantifiable.

 

[lukethethird]

Is it sin?
Hope so.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I'm saying that the definition of spirit, is antithetical to that of the corporeal or the flesh, that is, the material realm.
This principle is fundamental and does not pertain to any specific religion, it is an objective and intrinsic fact.
Therefore, why you endorse hedonism is beyond me.

Actually I don't endorse or oppose hedonism. What I oppose in your message is making blanket judgement calls about the characters of those who are hedonistic and that you think you know what they think, when reality shows that your judgements are incorrect. Therein lies bigotry and oppression. For a person who considers your opinion as objective and intrinsic fact, you sure don't check whether your opinions correlate to reality.

To represent something or someone correctly you have to represent to others the reality of those things or people, not make caricatures of them that suit your narrative.

Yes, the spiritual concerns the incorporeal realm, but religions have to use the material realm to access the spirit. How to use the material realm to access the spiritual or be in harmony with the spiritual varies greatly from religion to religion. The Aztecs believed that human sacrifice was the answer whereas Jainism believes that not harming any creature at all is the answer. With regards to sex, various religions had sex rites, what one would consider promiscuity, to access the spiritual realm. There are religions that think that sex is just a natural act and has nothing to do with accessing the spiritual.

Sacred prostitution - Wikipedia

 

[DNB]

Actually I don't endorse or oppose hedonism. What I oppose in your message is making blanket judgement calls about the characters of those who are hedonistic and that you think you know what they think, when reality shows that your judgements are incorrect. Therein lies bigotry and oppression. For a person who considers your opinion as objective and intrinsic fact, you sure don't check whether your opinions correlate to reality.

To represent something or someone correctly you have to represent to others the reality of those things or people, not make caricatures of them that suit your narrative.

Yes, the spiritual concerns the incorporeal realm, but religions have to use the material realm to access the spirit. How to use the material realm to access the spiritual or be in harmony with the spiritual varies greatly from religion to religion. The Aztecs believed that human sacrifice was the answer whereas Jainism believes that not harming any creature at all is the answer. With regards to sex, various religions had sex rites, what one would consider promiscuity, to access the spiritual realm. There are religions that think that sex is just a natural act and has nothing to do with accessing the spiritual.

Sacred prostitution - Wikipedia

'...but religions have to use the material realm to access the spirit....' oxymoron!
My opinions represent reality, I believe that it is you who is lacking the perception in discerning the true character of lascivious and unrestrained people. You call the people that you know who are promiscuous 'chilled', I call them cold and callous. You call them intellectual and productive, I call them pedantic and ambitious. You're not recognizing the nuances.

 

[Samael_Khan]

'...but religions have to use the material realm to access the spirit....' oxymoron!

If you go to church, you engage in the material realm to access the spiritual. If you say that actions must reflect your spiritual state, those actions exist in the material realm. This should be obvious.

My opinions represent reality, I believe that it is you who is lacking the perception in discerning the true character of lascivious and unrestrained people. You call the people that you know who are promiscuous 'chilled', I call them cold and callous. You call them intellectual and productive, I call them pedantic and ambitious. You're not recognizing the nuances.

Nope. Your opinions do not represent reality because I know people who don't fit your opinion, therefore you are wrong. You have a black and white view of these people, therefore you are the one without nuance.

You are just a bigot who wants to run other people down. Maybe you should go to a psychologist? Or maybe you dislike promiscuous people because you envy them and have these desires yourself? In my experience, the bigots are the ones who are in denial about their own desires and take their hatred for themselves out on those who express the same desires publicly. For instance people who hate homosexuals usually have strong sexual desires towards the same sex themselves.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is normal to want to watch p-graphy.
However, it is not normal to watch p-graphy.
The unrealized desire to watch semi-naked ladies is the growing mental pain.
So, get to love your pain and dissatisfaction. Life after the Original Sin is like one huge pain.


The medicine, the doctors tell, that the healthy sexual act produces the good chemical pattern in the brain. However, the watching p-phy produces the poison in the brain.

About another theme:

It is normal to fear death, even with terrible fear (like Jesus Christ did before Crucifixion). But it is not normal to die: not normal to die physically, and not normal to die mentally.

About another theme:
"The luck is one of the God's names. Because to be lucky is good. And all good notions are the God's names: Love, Justice, Way, Truth, Police, etc. "

Pornography makes sex objects out of women (and men). As a feminist, I'm thoroughly against it.

 

[DNB]

If you go to church, you engage in the material realm to access the spiritual. If you say that actions must reflect your spiritual state, those actions exist in the material realm. This should be obvious.

Nope. Your opinions do not represent reality because I know people who don't fit your opinion, therefore you are wrong. You have a black and white view of these people, therefore you are the one without nuance.

You are just a bigot who wants to run other people down. Maybe you should go to a psychologist? Or maybe you dislike promiscuous people because you envy them and have these desires yourself? In my experience, the bigots are the ones who are in denial about their own desires and take their hatred for themselves out on those who express the same desires publicly. For instance people who hate homosexuals usually have strong sexual desires towards the same sex themselves.

Uh huh, the damn finally caved in. The cracks were beginning to show right from the outset, and now, you just couldn't conceal the fractures any longer.
The folly opened up like a floodgate, leaving no room for speculation or extenuation on your behalf.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Uh huh, the damn finally caved in. The cracks were beginning to show right from the outset, and now, you just couldn't conceal the fractures any longer.
The folly opened up like a floodgate, leaving no room for speculation or extenuation on your behalf.

Ah, so you don't deny my speculation about your innate desires and motives? Very revealing.

 

[Sheldon]

I share facts not threats.

A fact and a threat need not be mutually exclusive of course, but you shared no fact, only an unevidenced claim.

Be good Mr Sheldon. The facts of God cannot be proved by another.

If someone makes a claim in a public debate forum, then they should be prepared to demonstrate some objective evidence for that claim, or at the very least be prepared to be challenged to so.

Only God cad can prove them to you.

I don't believe you, can you demonstrate anything beyond this bare claim to support it?

That is by opening ones heart to him.

Don't even know what that means sorry, use plain language not metaphors, my heart is a pump made of muscle, like everyone else's? If you mean presuppose your deity is real, then no that's absurd sorry, as there is probably nothing one could not believe by presupposing it to be true.

So really its all on you.

I disagree, and again you'd need to demonstrate some objective evidence for that claim, but I can guess that's not happening.

You refuse words, how would you like to be shown? I only have words.

I don't know what you mean sorry, I have refused nothing, only disbelieved unevidenced claims, and requested they be supported by something approaching objective evidence.

 

[kjw47]

A fact and a threat need not be mutually exclusive of course, but you shared no fact, only an unevidenced claim.



If someone makes a claim in a public debate forum, then they should be prepared to demonstrate some objective evidence for that claim, or at the very least be prepared to be challenged to so.



I don't believe you, can you demonstrate anything beyond this bare claim to support it?



Don't even know what that means sorry, use plain language not metaphors, my heart is a pump made of muscle, like everyone else's? If you mean presuppose your deity is real, then no that's absurd sorry, as there is probably nothing one could not believe by presupposing it to be true.



I disagree, and again you'd need to demonstrate some objective evidence for that claim, but I can guess that's not happening.



I don't know what you mean sorry, I have refused nothing, only disbelieved unevidenced claims, and requested they be supported by something approaching objective evidence.

Read Revelation 13 i will show you. Written over 1800 years ago but all see it occurring now for years.

 

[Sheldon]

After carefully considering my knowledge of the bible, i have come up with a way i might be able to prove that Gods written word was by the inspiration of God. But you must do 1 thing first--Read Revelation 13-very symbolic, Few on earth can explain its meaning. I can with 6 english words. The world has watched these words come to pass for years. Yet they do not even know, only those with the real Jesus know by holy spirit.
Is this acceptable to you? This is the best i can do. You being a member of the human family, God doesnt desire even 1 to perish, and neither do i. Give me this one chance.

I've already read that text, I don't see that it is evidence for any deity though.

It was written over 1850 years ago about todays world, all have seen it occur and is still occurring. Proving the words were inspired by God.

That passage is filled with preposterous claims that haven't remotely "come to pass" or claims so broad and vague they happen all the time. As I said claims for prophesy have 3 distinct parts:

1. That someone predicted something unequivocally specific.
2. That later this occurred exactly as described.
3. That this could only happen by divine intervention.

1 and 2 have are clearly not evidenced in that passage at all, since as I said the claims are either preposterous and have not remotely happened, or are so workaday they happen all the time, predicting wars is hardly a prediction for example.

However as I also explained, even were 1 and 2 sufficiently evidenced as to leave no room for doubt, this still does not evidence 3 at all, making assumptions based on not having contrary explanations or evidence is a known common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. I don't believe claims that are manifestly irrational.

 

[Sheldon]

Read Revelation 13 i will show you. Written over 1800 years ago but all see it occurring now for years.

No I don't see that at all, just some claims that were so vague anyone could make them with a better than average chance they'd come true at some point, and other claims that clearly have not come true. As I've explained now several times, even someone could show unequivocally that an extremely accurate and unlikely claim later came true exactly as described, all you would have is inexplicable event. To claim otherwise is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and ipso fact irrational.