RosetDewn

I was absentmindedly reading a sermon from here (a church's website), and am pretty anonoyed by some of its writer's assumptions. However, one really sticks out at me--if you can find the part of the sermon where he writes of God's will/sexual sin:
Now, I'm not exactly attacking the belief of abstinence before marriage on principle, but this part really, really got to me. I am absolutely no expert on the religion, but I was always under the impression it was the cardinal belief (in Christianity) that every human, no matter what, lived in sin no matter what--purely by being only human. So, to them, sin is sin, and therefore you have to accept jesus into your heart, etc etc...except...isn't that almost contradicting what he's saying? So, if I go by this quote, by every single thing one does wrong, god basically gets pissed off and leaves them? But isn't it also a strong basis of the faith that "God will never leave you or forsake" you? Argh..it goes in circles and it's killing me...

Clivedurdle

It is called living in sin for a reason, cos really there aren't any other sins - you get a longer eternity in hell for sex!

(Welcome!)

Skeptical

Leaving aside for a moment that Paul probably knew exactly what you and I know about what Jesus thought about "fornication", i.e. absolutely nothing... (just a pet peeve of mine, I dislike when people say "the bible says..." when "the bible" is a collection of widely varying subjects from widely varying sources. One might as well say "the library says..." as a source of authority as if that makes sense, but I digress)

I think the answer that a xian would give is that someone who purposely and knowingly "lives in a state of sin" (however one defines that) is not trying to live according to God's wishes, so it makes no sense for them to try and get God to help them. This would be opposed to someone who, though not sucessful, tries to live according to God's wishes whom presumably God would help. (don't shoot the messenger, I think its bollocks, that is just my interpretation of what I think they would say)

That's the best I can do for you. You probably shouldn't try and read too much into these sorts of "arguments", they are not intended to be logical or rational, they are meant to get people to behave in a certain way and to follow authority for its own sake. Christianity is full of internal inconsistencies that are irrelevant to believers because no one follows Christianity because it makes logical sense, no matter what some apologists say. Arguments follow belief, not vice versa. No one comes to follow Christianity through logical argument.

As Hume said, "Christianity was not only attended at the first by miracles, it requires one to this day to believe it".

andrewcriddle

I don't think the point is specifically about sexual behaviour.

I think the point is that if in an important part of one's life one knows or believes that one is behaving in a way clearly contrary to God's will and is doing nothing whatsoever to change this, then asking for God's guidance on less clear and straightforward matters is a waste of time.

If one is entirely ignoring God's will in a clear and important matter then guidance about God's will in a less important and/or less straightforward matter seems pointless.

I don't think the sermon is claiming that such disobedience to God puts one outside God's love and care, the idea is rather that one can't expect guidance from God while at the same time refusing to listen to that guidance in a clear and important matter.

Andrew Criddle