The Problem of Hell

[DysonSphere]

You’re quite right on your second claim. As to your first, it is not true that one must call oneself “anti-God” in order to effectivley be anti-God (it is even possible, in principle and in practice, to explicitly call oneself “pro-God” while effectively being anti-God).

Of course, but for the sake of any argument, I should take people by their word on these matters.

 

[DysonSphere]

One is anti-God by demonstration, not self labelling.

See the comment I made directly above this one.

By demonstration, however, I know of no one who is actually and perpetually anti-God. I think some people do wrong things, but most do so either very temporarily, or are ignorant of the thing really being wrong.

Even the people who call themselves “anti-God” live pretty decent lives.

Maybe serial killers would be examples of anti-God people, but many of these would not really be culpable because of mental defect, and the rest may not desire to kill forever. If someone really desired to be anti-God forever, then sure, hell would be a fine place for him or her. I’m not sure if anyone like that exists.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Since you declare yourself an atheist, nothing. As St Paul said in 2 Corinthians, the Gospel to those that are perishing is nonsense, but to the faithful the Word of salvation.

If, on the other hand, you are open to rational discussion, the use of condoms or fornication counter basic commands of God. One was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28)–that pretty well eliminates the use of birth control.

I’m not sure I see why that eliminates birth control. God never stipulated that every sexual encounter should result in a pregnancy. In fact, the Bible does not explicitly forbid the use of withdrawl to avoid pregnancy.

The second was given specifically to the first couple: “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24). Jesus completed this sentiment: “Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:8-9) Obviously, this divine command forbids fornication, adultery, even divorce.

Again, these are biblical injunctions and carry little weight with non-believers, but the fact that you have asked indicates some openess to discussion.

Not entirely. The passage says that what God hath joined, no man may put asunder. That does not prevent two people from fornicating before marriage.

You are right of course. As an atheist I can indulge any desire within the law and the letter of the land without fear of castigation.

 

[DysonSphere]

You are right of course. As an atheist I can indulge any desire within the law and the letter of the land without fear of castigation.

Maybe it depends on who you are having sex with, if they are married, and if their husband or wife finds out about it. Otherwise, have at 'em, Tiger.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Maybe it depends on who you are having sex with, if they are married, and if their husband or wife finds out about it. Otherwise, have at 'em, Tiger.

Contrary to what you may believe about atheists, I am neither amoral nor unethical. I would never dream of coming between a woman and her husband.

 

[DysonSphere]

Contrary to what you may believe about atheists, I am neither amoral nor unethical. I would never dream of coming between a woman and her husband.

It’s not illegal. Also, I don’t think anything really bad about atheists. I’m just pointing out that there are certain actions, not prohibited by the law, that people could get castigated for committing (and that decent people of whatever faith, or none at all, would avoid).

As for the “fornication”, so long as your sexual activity is responsible (and, I believe, monogamous), and so long as you are genuinely in love, I see nothing wrong with it. The Bible is a bit old-fashioned about these things. My personal tastes are somewhat dated as well, but I will stick with them. I abstained until marriage, and will remain monogamous with my wife.

I, and others who have done the same, are generally happier for it (the support for this statement is purely anecdotal).

 

[Moonstruck888]

It’s not illegal. Also, I don’t think anything really bad about atheists. I’m just pointing out that there are certain actions, not prohibited by the law, that people could get castigated for committing (and that decent people of whatever faith, or none at all, would avoid).

As for the “fornication”, so long as your sexual activity is responsible (and, I believe, monogamous), and so long as you are genuinely in love, I see nothing wrong with it. The Bible is a bit old-fashioned about these things. My personal tastes are somewhat dated as well, but I will stick with them. I abstained until marriage, and will remain monogamous with my wife.

I, and others who have done the same, are generally happier for it (the support for this statement is purely anecdotal).

I would tend to agree with you.

 

[richardacombs]

I’m not sure I see why that eliminates birth control. God never stipulated that every sexual encounter should result in a pregnancy. In fact, the Bible does not explicitly forbid the use of withdrawl to avoid pregnancy.

Not entirely. The passage says that what God hath joined, no man may put asunder. That does not prevent two people from fornicating before marriage.

You are right of course. As an atheist I can indulge any desire within the law and the letter of the land without fear of castigation.

I believe that the quotations are quite clear.

The purpose of birth control is primarily to prevent fruitfulness and multiplication, which contradicts the very command.

As for the second pair of quotations, they clearly indicate that coitus joins a man and woman, which, according to Jesus, should result in a divinely approved union. Fornication, adultery, etc. fall outside the definition of a divinely approved union. Other interpretations are mere sophistry.

 

[Betterave]

Of course, but for the sake of any argument, I should take people by their word on these matters.

“Of course” indicates agreement with what I said (namely, that there is no reason to simply take people by their word on these matters), therefore you seem to be contradicting yourself (“I shouldn’t…, but I should…”).

 

[Betterave]

As an atheist I can indulge any desire within the law and the letter of the land without fear of castigation.

Correction: As -]an atheist/-] a citizen I can indulge any desire within the law and the letter of the land without fear of -]castigation/-] formal sanction from secular authorities.

 

[DysonSphere]

“Of course” indicates agreement with what I said (namely, that there is no reason to simply take people by their word on these matters), therefore you seem to be contradicting yourself (“I shouldn’t…, but I should…”).

Either you are misunderstanding me on an elementary point, or you are being uncharitable in the discussion. Either way, there’s no point in continuing.

 

[Mijoy2]

Well, you’ve given my a very succinct illustration of precisely what it is I’m doing, but I don’t really see why it’s morally wrong, provided both parties are consensual?

Perhaps you could explain exactly why it is wrong, when both parties are experiencing pleasure?

This attempt at an explaination of my thoughts is not theological, it is merely thoughts I have from a secular perspective that, I feel, coincide with the Church’s teeachings on matters of morality in regard to carefree sexual activity.

“Perhaps you could explain exactly why it is wrong, when both parties are experiencing pleasure?”

Of course we will hear this alot from todays secular society. Virtually all television shows, billboards, TV commercials, movies and actually all walks of life these days supports the notion that sex is indeed fun and if the consenting parties are having fun, then what harm is being done? I can easily see and understand this train of thought. Heck, if you and received pleasure from punching each other in the arm as hard as can until one cannot take it any longer and concedes defeat the who’s business is it but ours? And I would agree wholeheartedly. I think it foolish but I undestand the notion.

Casual sex is not fun. Of course it is “fun” at the moment, most often by at least one, if not both (or more), of the parties involved. But it is almost always not without pain. To prove this point all you have to do is look at the secular world that proposes that no harm is being done.

Boy meets girl, couple engage in sexual activity, one or the other falls madly in love and feels a deep routed commitment towards the other, cannot even conceive of life without the other. However the other does not return this feeling and walks away to yet another casual relationship leaving the other heartbroken beyond words.

Man meets woman in bar. They mutually decide on a night together. After they have thier initial thrill one or the other has had enough and decides he/she wants to call the rest of the night off. The other is left feeling inadequet. Was I not “good”? Was I found distasteful? What is wrong with me?

Man and woman get married, one decides he/she is not getting fulfilled, so they opt out leaving the other in financial ruins, broken-hearted with no will to live.

Casual sex is not “fun” it is hurtful and selfish. It causes some the deepest sense of dispair many will ever feel in life. It is a cause of elevating the attractive over the not so attractive, we almost worship the beautiful people regardless of who and what they are.It is the primary cause of jealosy and feelings of inadequecy.

The “sins” (said from a secular perspective), are monumental and the results are tragic.

 

[Betterave]

Either you are misunderstanding me on an elementary point, or you are being uncharitable in the discussion. Either way, there’s no point in continuing.

lol - this appears to be a non sequitur. I suppose I’m misunderstanding you on an elementary point again.

 

[momor]

This attempt at an explaination of my thoughts is not theological, it is merely thoughts I have from a secular perspective that, I feel, coincide with the Church’s teeachings on matters of morality in regard to carefree sexual activity.

“Perhaps you could explain exactly why it is wrong, when both parties are experiencing pleasure?”

Of course we will hear this alot from todays secular society. Virtually all television shows, billboards, TV commercials, movies and actually all walks of life these days supports the notion that sex is indeed fun and if the consenting parties are having fun, then what harm is being done? I can easily see and understand this train of thought. Heck, if you and received pleasure from punching each other in the arm as hard as can until one cannot take it any longer and concedes defeat the who’s business is it but ours? And I would agree wholeheartedly. I think it foolish but I undestand the notion.

Casual sex is not fun. Of course it is “fun” at the moment, most often by at least one, if not both (or more), of the parties involved. But it is almost always not without pain. To prove this point all you have to do is look at the secular world that proposes that no harm is being done.

Boy meets girl, couple engage in sexual activity, one or the other falls madly in love and feels a deep routed commitment towards the other, cannot even conceive of life without the other. However the other does not return this feeling and walks away to yet another casual relationship leaving the other heartbroken beyond words.

Man meets woman in bar. They mutually decide on a night together. After they have thier initial thrill one or the other has had enough and decides he/she wants to call the rest of the night off. The other is left feeling inadequet. Was I not “good”? Was I found distasteful? What is wrong with me?

Man and woman get married, one decides he/she is not getting fulfilled, so they opt out leaving the other in financial ruins, broken-hearted with no will to live.

Casual sex is not “fun” it is hurtful and selfish. It causes some the deepest sense of dispair many will ever feel in life. It is a cause of elevating the attractive over the not so attractive, we almost worship the beautiful people regardless of who and what they are.It is the primary cause of jealosy and feelings of inadequecy.

The “sins” (said from a secular perspective), are monumental and the results are tragic.

Good post! Let me add a couple more common ways casual sex turns pleasure into pain.

Man and woman meet and agree to a night of sex. Contraception fails. Woman has baby and man now has at least 18 - 22 years of being financially and emotionally tied to a woman he has no love or respect for and who may be a terrible mother to his child. His one night stand is a constant source of pain and division in his future marriage.

Man and woman meet and agree to a night of sex. Condom breaks. Woman ends up infected with HIV.

Every encounter started out with consensual, protected sex and the two were wildly satisfied, but against their expectations, they traded momentary pleasure for years or even a life of pain. The list is endless…

 

[fhansen]

Good post! Let me add a couple more common ways casual sex turns pleasure into pain.

Man and woman meet and agree to a night of sex. Contraception fails. Woman has baby and man now has at least 18 - 22 years of being financially and emotionally tied to a woman he has no love or respect for and who may be a terrible mother to his child. His one night stand is a constant source of pain and division in his future marriage.

Man and woman meet and agree to a night of sex. Condom breaks. Woman ends up infected with HIV.

Every encounter started out with consensual, protected sex and the two were wildly satisfied, but against their expectations, they traded momentary pleasure for years or even a life of pain. The list is endless…

Uncommitted man and women have sex. Women becomes pregnant but child bearing is inconvenient so child is killed in womb. Attitude towards the importance/sanctity of human life takes another step backwards.

 

[Seeker2010]

Virtually all television shows, billboards, TV commercials, movies and actually all walks of life these days supports the notion that sex is indeed fun and if the consenting parties are having fun, then what harm is being done? I can easily see and understand this train of thought.

OK, so far, so good. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it may be a duck.

Heck, if you and received pleasure from punching each other in the arm as hard as can until one cannot take it any longer and concedes defeat the who’s business is it but ours?

So if I’m understanding you correctly, you are not labeling this punching game as wrong, or immoral, simply not your cup of tea. Cool. I know people who are into some serious S&M, and though I’ve been known to take (and enjoy) the occasional spanking or two, I’m an amateur compared to them.

Casual sex is not fun.

My experience says otherwise, but continue…

Boy meets girl, couple engage in sexual activity, one or the other falls madly in love and feels a deep routed commitment towards the other, cannot even conceive of life without the other. However the other does not return this feeling and walks away to yet another casual relationship leaving the other heartbroken beyond words.

One should understand the rules of the game in which one is playing.

If casual sex is being done in the confines of a committed and monogamous relationship, and the expectation is that the relationship is likely to grow and bloom then adding sex may intensify feelings. In fact, I’d go so far as to NOT label this as ‘casual’ sex in the first place, as there’s nothing ‘casual’ about it.

OTOH, If the sex is married couples fooling around as a group with the expectation being when it’s over, everyone goes back home and life goes on, there’s no reason for it to do so.

I’d even say if it’s NOT the expectation of ALL parties that it’s ‘just sex for fun’ then whoever doesn’t think that is not really having ‘casual’ sex in the first place. Not everyone is emotionally capable of casual sex, and those that are not should not partake. Then again, not everyone is capable of jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft, even if they believe their parachute will work.

Different Strokes. No pun intended.

Man meets woman in bar. They mutually decide on a night together. After they have thier initial thrill one or the other has had enough and decides he/she wants to call the rest of the night off. The other is left feeling inadequet. Was I not “good”? Was I found distasteful? What is wrong with me?

One need not have any sort of sexual activity, real, expected, hoped for, or otherwise to have this exact same scenario play out.

Man and woman get married, one decides he/she is not getting fulfilled, so they opt out leaving the other in financial ruins, broken-hearted with no will to live.

Sexual issues are but a single item in a very, very long list that can cause or contribute to this phenomenon. And what’s your alternative, forcing a couple who have concluded that they hate each other to nonetheless be forced to live and act as a married couple?

Casual sex is not “fun” it is hurtful and selfish.

You have not shown that in the least.

Now, I CAN give you a secular/quasi-religious perspective that tends to show why sexual promiscuity is something that should be avoided, at least in days gone by.

Because it’s dangerous! And God will punish you for it.(Or, was.)

Back in the day it’s a factual statement that it was literally a dangerous activity, litterally akin to playing russian roulette, and you play that game enough times, it’s just a matter of when you’re going to lose, not if.

However, our medical technologies have changed that. Most of the hideous sexually transmitted diseases that plagued mankind from it’s inception until but a few decades ago are now nothing more than nuiscances, requiring nothing more than a shot or two to completely clear up. No form of contraception is 100% perfect, but stack a few of them together (say pills, condoms, and withdrawal combined) and you get close enough that the whole unwanted pregnancy thing becomes very, very rare.

So, yeah, 150 years ago you were dumb to be promiscuous. It was likely even more true 1500 years ago.

But not so much today.

 

[Seeker2010]

Man and woman meet and agree to a night of sex. Condom breaks. Woman ends up infected with HIV.

While not absolutely impossible, the incidents of females contracting HIV while having protected sex is extraordinarily rare. There is a reason AIDS is a scourge in the gay community and in Africa, and that is because it’s most common method of transmission is unprotected anal sex. In the gay community, well, that’s how they roll, and in Africa they use anal sex as birth control since the church has them convinced condoms are the root of all evil.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I believe that the quotations are quite clear.

The purpose of birth control is primarily to prevent fruitfulness and multiplication, which contradicts the very command.

As for the second pair of quotations, they clearly indicate that coitus joins a man and woman, which, according to Jesus, should result in a divinely approved union. Fornication, adultery, etc. fall outside the definition of a divinely approved union. Other interpretations are mere sophistry.

Sophistry? Justify that. These passages are open to interpretation. Unless you are claiming to be a prophet of some kind, my interpretation is no more of a sophism than yours.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Boy meets girl, couple engage in sexual activity, one or the other falls madly in love and feels a deep routed commitment towards the other, cannot even conceive of life without the other. However the other does not return this feeling and walks away to yet another casual relationship leaving the other heartbroken beyond words.

That is the oldest story in the book. Countless great poems, literature and songs have been dedicated to that very subject. Most of us have experienced those emotions at some time or another.

They are, I fear, part of growing up and quite unavoidable.

 

[momor]

However, our medical technologies have changed that. Most of the hideous sexually transmitted diseases that plagued mankind from it’s inception until but a few decades ago are now nothing more than nuiscances, requiring nothing more than a shot or two to completely clear up. No form of contraception is 100% perfect, but stack a few of them together (say pills, condoms, and withdrawal combined) and you get close enough that the whole unwanted pregnancy thing becomes very, very rare.

So, yeah, 150 years ago you were dumb to be promiscuous. It was likely even more true 1500 years ago.

But not so much today.

I think you forgot about HPV, herpes and HIV. All incurable and by no means minor.