first communion - the devil?

gubby

What happened to the devil ? my granddaughter is getting first communion this year and when I mentioned the devil to her the other day she had no idea what I was on about? Dont the teach about the devil anymore? is he gone?

nesf

Moved from Parenting.

MatthewVII

Just as an aside, best thread title ever

Dudess

gubby wrote: »

What happened to the devil ? my granddaughter is getting first communion this year and when I mentioned the devil to her the other day she had no idea what I was on about? Dont the teach about the devil anymore? is he gone?

Hopefully. This to me looks like a sign of a less fire-and-brimstone religious education curriculum. It angers me when I think of how I was taught all that you're-going-to-hell stuff - in the 80s/early 90s too, not 1950s Ireland...

Soul Winner

gubby wrote: »

What happened to the devil ? my granddaughter is getting first communion this year and when I mentioned the devil to her the other day she had no idea what I was on about? Dont the teach about the devil anymore? is he gone?

Well if the Book of Revelation describes future events then he has yet to meet his demise which would mean that the prince of this world is still alive and well. Read 'The Screwtape Letters' by C.S. Lewis, I can't think of a better book to reccomend on this subject.

homer911

Like the IRA, he hasn't gone away you know!

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Its more of a Love message than a Fire & Brimstone message these days.

Frankly if you are a christian through fear of the devil, rather than through the love or an all-powerful God, you are a christian (small c) for the wrong reasons

MatthewVII

Soul Winner wrote: »

the prince of this world is still alive and well.

Why do you assume that he is the prince of this world? I would say that the human race is doing pretty well. By and large, most people are good, honest and participating members of society.

BrianCalgary

MatthewVII wrote: »

Why do you assume that he is the prince of this world? I would say that the human race is doing pretty well. By and large, most people are good, honest and participating members of society.

The Bible says he is the prince of this world.

The human race is not doing very well at all. There are far too many dishonest selfish members of society.

MatthewVII

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The human race is not doing very well at all. There are far too many dishonest selfish members of society.

I would say that humans are living longer, happier, healthier lives than ever before. This has led to a natural move away from religion as people realise it is not necessary for having a fulfilling life. I would argue that in ones day to day dealings (certainly for me and most people I know) people are honest, normal people who are a credit to society. There will always be the occasional bad egg (even in strictly religious circles), but I think society has come a long way.

Patricide

AFAIK, the church went away from all the fire and brimstone stuff to make the church more appealing. When i was in primary school in the 90ies we were told there was a devil and a hell but that was about it...none of this eternal torment or any of that.

I can only imagine its to the point where hes not mentioned at all at this stage.

Phototoxin

no he doesn't exist.. just like limbo and purgatory.. conveniently omitted to avoid sticky questions

Patricide

I thought purgatory was limbo?

BrianCalgary

MatthewVII wrote: »

I would say that humans are living longer, happier, healthier lives than ever before. This has led to a natural move away from religion as people realise it is not necessary for having a fulfilling life. I would argue that in ones day to day dealings (certainly for me and most people I know) people are honest, normal people who are a credit to society. There will always be the occasional bad egg (even in strictly religious circles), but I think society has come a long way.

You must see a totally different world than I do. Within my circle of friends and contacts through soccer, church, business, school and football I would say that all are decent.

But go beyond that and we see crime, murders, theft. In Africa we see AIDS epidemics and war, Guatemala has an unbelievable crime rate and the security that is set up throughout Central America certainly reflects that people are afraid.

Middle east tensions and war. Basically the more I see of this world the more it sucks.

Rev Hellfire

I just asked my seven year old who goes to a catholic school and he hadn't heard of the devil. Though he had heard of Satan, "some sort of guy from god or something", technically correct perhaps

Youth of today, I despair...

FX Meister

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You must see a totally different world than I do. Within my circle of friends and contacts through soccer, church, business, school and football I would say that all are decent.

But go beyond that and we see crime, murders, theft. In Africa we see AIDS epidemics and war, Guatemala has an unbelievable crime rate and the security that is set up throughout Central America certainly reflects that people are afraid.

Middle east tensions and war. Basically the more I see of this world the more it sucks.

Not meaning to bash the church when I say this but doesn't the Pope promote the spread of aids in Africa by not allowing contraception? So surely the devil isn't the only one to blame for this.

MatthewVII

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You must see a totally different world than I do. Within my circle of friends and contacts through soccer, church, business, school and football I would say that all are decent.

But go beyond that and we see crime, murders, theft. In Africa we see AIDS epidemics and war, Guatemala has an unbelievable crime rate and the security that is set up throughout Central America certainly reflects that people are afraid.

Middle east tensions and war. Basically the more I see of this world the more it sucks.

Precisely. When you look for it, you can see evil and despair in many places. I don't deny this. All I am saying is that it's not really appropriate to say that the world has been given over to the devil just because of the actions of a subset of the population.

As an aside, I would have to disagree that the AIDS epidemic is an "evil". HIV is just another lifeform out to spread itself around. It doesn't do this because it is malicious. It isn't spread by malice (unless spread by rape, in which case rape is the evil, not the HIV), it's just due to risky (not evil) practice and misinformation which is hard to combat.

I would say you have a very negative view of the world. Look on the bright side. You can find happiness and goodness if you look too. It's the way the world has always been and tbh I can't ever really see it changing massively

BrianCalgary

MatthewVII wrote: »

Precisely. When you look for it, you can see evil and despair in many places. I don't deny this. All I am saying is that it's not really appropriate to say that the world has been given over to the devil just because of the actions of a subset of the population.

As an aside, I would have to disagree that the AIDS epidemic is an "evil". HIV is just another lifeform out to spread itself around. It doesn't do this because it is malicious. It isn't spread by malice (unless spread by rape, in which case rape is the evil, not the HIV), it's just due to risky (not evil) practice and misinformation which is hard to combat.

I would say you have a very negative view of the world. Look on the bright side. You can find happiness and goodness if you look too. It's the way the world has always been and tbh I can't ever really see it changing massively

I see loads of happiness and joy. In the faces of the kids in Guatemala who are just happy to have a new ball to kick about, yet around the corner are the men passed out on the side of the road.

The joy of a new mother; yet the murder of a loved grandfather, father and husband, happeningaround the corner from where 10,000 people thorougly enjoyed a hockey game.

HIV is spread through unbiblical activity: sex ouside a committed monogamous marriage, drug usage, which breaks the 'your body is a temple of teh Holy Spirit'ot to be abused passage.

So HIV is a result of evil. People knowingly having yet and spreading it.

MatthewVII

BrianCalgary wrote: »

HIV is spread through unbiblical activity: sex ouside a committed monogamous marriage, drug usage, which breaks the 'your body is a temple of teh Holy Spirit'ot to be abused passage.

So HIV is a result of evil. People knowingly having yet and spreading it.

On the "Your body is a Temple" point, where do Christians draw the line? I mean, obviously they shouldn't be able to drink the blood of Christ, as that contains alcohol, which is toxic. Smoking, living in inner city areas, living in houses with high levels of radon, sending their children to schools with microasbestosis, eating foods containing MSG etc could all be seen as recklessly endangering the holy spirit.

As for AIDS being spread by unbiblical activity, it is also spread by biblical activity, ie unprotected sex in a monogamous marriage. Since it is often asymptomatic or with poorly definable symptomatology it is not always a case of knowingly spreading it. And I would argue that proper public health measures would do a lot more than promotion of biblical morals to stop it.

Bougeoir

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I see loads of happiness and joy. In the faces of the kids in Guatemala who are just happy to have a new ball to kick about, yet around the corner are the men passed out on the side of the road.

The joy of a new mother; yet the murder of a loved grandfather, father and husband, happeningaround the corner from where 10,000 people thorougly enjoyed a hockey game.

HIV is spread through unbiblical activity: sex ouside a committed monogamous marriage, drug usage, which breaks the 'your body is a temple of teh Holy Spirit'ot to be abused passage.

So HIV is a result of evil. People knowingly having yet and spreading it.

Sorry but your comments on HIV are totally inappropriate! You can't blame somebody for having HIV. Many people are born with it, many others were raped. I know a man who has HIV and he refrains from sex now due to fear that it will spread to somebody else and ruin their life. Sorry but when have Christians been so "biblical"? Maybe a handful but people have always had sex outside of marriage even 2000 years ago, take a look at Genesis with Jacob and co going off and having multiple wives! Or Lot's daughters making their father drunk and having sex with him and having children! Eww! There will always be problems in society but it has nothing to do with the Bible!

homer911

Isn't the Devil's greatest weapon the notion that people dont think he exists??

If the Devil didnt exist, there would be no sin. Without sin we would never have had Jesus (on this earth anyway). People still believe that Jesus exists - what makes them stop believing in the Devil?

Despite seeing goodness everywhere, we are all sinners, we are all capable of sin, and the wages of sin...

BrianCalgary

MatthewVII wrote: »

On the "Your body is a Temple" point, where do Christians draw the line? I mean, obviously they shouldn't be able to drink the blood of Christ, as that contains alcohol, which is toxic. Smoking, living in inner city areas, living in houses with high levels of radon, sending their children to schools with microasbestosis, eating foods containing MSG etc could all be seen as recklessly endangering the holy spirit..

Be reasonable. Use the noggin that God gave you and figure it out. If you object to alcohol use grape juice.

MatthewVII wrote: »

As for AIDS being spread by unbiblical activity, it is also spread by biblical activity, ie unprotected sex in a monogamous marriage. Since it is often asymptomatic or with poorly definable symptomatology it is not always a case of knowingly spreading it. And I would argue that proper public health measures would do a lot more than promotion of biblical morals to stop it.

Sorry but if one engages in biblical sexuality one will never contract a sexually transmitted disease via sex.

There are those who do knowngly spread it.

You could argue that until you are blue in the face. Public health measures do not work.

BrianCalgary

Bougeoir wrote: »

Sorry but your comments on HIV are totally inappropriate! You can't blame somebody for having HIV. Many people are born with it, many others were raped. I know a man who has HIV and he refrains from sex now due to fear that it will spread to somebody else and ruin their life. Sorry but when have Christians been so "biblical"? Maybe a handful but people have always had sex outside of marriage even 2000 years ago, take a look at Genesis with Jacob and co going off and having multiple wives! Or Lot's daughters making their father drunk and having sex with him and having children! Eww! There will always be problems in society but it has nothing to do with the Bible!

They are apporpriate; if one engages in promiscuos sexual activity one is openeing themselves up to contracting a sexually transmitted disease. How can you deny this?

There are those who can be blamed for contracting it because they engage in promiscuous sexual activity.

There are also those who through no fault of their own contract it, such as rape victims, which feed to my original point that the world is an evil place. As that is what the discussion is about, that mankind is debased. AIDs is one example of the sin of the world and it sconsequences.

And the Bible tells stories of man's history which includes sin and dysfunctional families and evils. If you notice there are always consequences to sin. Maybe mankind should heed the examples both good and bad of those who have lived before.

MatthewVII

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Be reasonable. Use the noggin that God gave you and figure it out. If you object to alcohol use grape juice.

That's the problem really. I could reasonably argue that use of highly refined and clean heroin from a sterile needle has no adverse physiological side effects whatsoever. Surely this means that IV drug use is not anti-holy spirit? The "common sense" rule means a different thing to everyone, in a way which will suit anyone, so is not really a way to live your life by.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sorry but if one engages in biblical sexuality one will never contract a sexually transmitted disease via sex.

There are those who do knowngly spread it.

You could argue that until you are blue in the face. Public health measures do not work.

You're right. Doctors never gets HIV or Hepatitis from needlestick injuries. People never contract Hepatitis from blood transfusions. Babies never get HIV from vertical transmission. It's because they are sinful people behaving in sinful ways.

Public health measures are a much more feasible solution than abstinence. Because it has a chance of being effective instead of completely dismissed.

Bougeoir

BrianCalgary wrote: »

They are apporpriate; if one engages in promiscuos sexual activity one is openeing themselves up to contracting a sexually transmitted disease. How can you deny this?

There are those who can be blamed for contracting it because they engage in promiscuous sexual activity.

There are also those who through no fault of their own contract it, such as rape victims, which feed to my original point that the world is an evil place. As that is what the discussion is about, that mankind is debased. AIDs is one example of the sin of the world and it sconsequences.

And the Bible tells stories of man's history which includes sin and dysfunctional families and evils. If you notice there are always consequences to sin. Maybe mankind should heed the examples both good and bad of those who have lived before.

No I don't deny that there is a much higher risk when engaging in promiscuous sexual activities. But if one does sleep with others outside of relationships or one-night stands (not everyone is lucky to be in a relationship and many do have the human need to have sex it's plain and simple really) well they should be careful and have protection. It will happen people will have sex and flings it has always been there and is not always bad. But I am not going to agree with you as I am not a Christian (I'm not an atheist either if that's what you may be thinking). You could say anything is a result of people not living by the Bible but many people who do live by the Bible also justify for committing atrocities. I do agree that the Bible does say a lot of good things but has a lot of immoral thing sin it too. I'm not anti-Christian or anything and I was raised Presbyterian. The point is there will always be this duality in Nature between good and bad. If AIDS were gone tomorrow, there would still be many problems but I tend to be optimistic.

MatthewVII

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You could argue that until you are blue in the face. Public health measures do not work.

As a matter of interest Brian, do you believe that the Hepatitis B vaccination schedule introduced on July 1st of this year for all newborns in Ireland is a waste of public money? Should we standardise harsh compassionate biblical teaching on monogamy and abstinence in schools instead?

I think you might be onto something.

Rev Hellfire

I don't think Brian is suggesting we abandon modern science in preference for the bible, rather and I may be wrong here that we temper our use of it though insights gained from the bible.

On the topic of condoms, from what I've gathered culturally African males are not greatly predisposed to their use, and there is no denying that by altering their sex practices the threat of HIV would be greatly reduced. Condoms aren't some magical bullet, I would suggest education is in this case.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

I would say that humans are living longer, happier, healthier lives than ever before. This has led to a natural move away from religion as people realise it is not necessary for having a fulfilling life. I would argue that in ones day to day dealings (certainly for me and most people I know) people are honest, normal people who are a credit to society. There will always be the occasional bad egg (even in strictly religious circles), but I think society has come a long way.

Using the move away from religion (which is really only a western phenomenon i.e. 15% of world population) as evidence of humanity doing well is a bit silly in a discussion with a religious person.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Why do you assume that he is the prince of this world? I would say that the human race is doing pretty well. By and large, most people are good, honest and participating members of society.

The world is in a dreadful state, it's utterly controlled by money lust. To take one issue that I know something about, climate change, relatively little is being done by governments to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is what the science demands. This is what good ethics demands. Yet it is not being done because a lot of cartels would risk slowing their rate of growth.

More locally, many people do not share your benevolent view of their fellow man, and how society is shaping up:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/node/741

MatthewVII

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I don't think Brian is suggesting we abandon modern science in preference for the bible, rather and I may be wrong here that we temper our use of it though insights gained from the bible.

I see what you're getting at, but Brian is specifically suggesting we reject science when he says that these infections can only be transmitted through unbiblical behaviour. His notion that public health measures are another dangerous affront to science.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

On the topic of condoms, from what I've gathered culturally African males are not greatly predisposed to their use, and there is no denying that by altering their sex practices the threat of HIV would be greatly reduced. Condoms aren't some magical bullet, I would suggest education is in this case.

Agreed. Education is the cornerstone of public health. However, in patients who have a HIV diagnosis, condoms should be made available whether they are used or not. Even a small uptake rate would have a benefit, and promoting their use might slowly increase their uptake over time.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

The world is in a dreadful state, it's utterly controlled by money lust. To take one issue that I know something about, climate change, relatively little is being done by governments to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is what the science demands. This is what good ethics demands. Yet it is not being done because a lot of cartels would risk slowing their rate of growth.

More locally, many people do not share your benevolent view of their fellow man, and how society is shaping up:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/node/741

And 200 years ago, people in Ireland were miserable because their lives were ruled by poverty, disease, terrible living conditions etc.

I have no argument that climate change is something to be worried about, and that there are detrimental forces in society. However, I think in today's world where one has relatively little to worry about (fear of others being money lustful) compared to what we once had to worry about (e.g. fulminating tuberculosis spelling certain death), people have it good. I think the bottom line is that people will always find something to be unhappy about.

As for that study, it is interesting. However, it doesn't mean that society is in massive decline or rotting at the core. It means that things are changing from what was once the norm, ie families are becoming smaller, communities are becoming less adherent etc. Not necessarily bad or good, just different, and in the face of this uncertainty people will of course be worried.

Húrin

On topic: I think that children are too young to understand the devil. Some degree of maturity and courage is required.

MatthewVII wrote: »

And 200 years ago, people in Ireland were miserable because their lives were ruled by poverty, disease, terrible living conditions etc.

I have no argument that climate change is something to be worried about, and that there are detrimental forces in society. However, I think in today's world where one has relatively little to worry about (fear of others being money lustful) compared to what we once had to worry about (e.g. fulminating tuberculosis spelling certain death), people have it good. I think the bottom line is that people will always find something to be unhappy about.

As for that study, it is interesting. However, it doesn't mean that society is in massive decline or rotting at the core. It means that things are changing from what was once the norm, ie families are becoming smaller, communities are becoming less adherent etc. Not necessarily bad or good, just different, and in the face of this uncertainty people will of course be worried.

I don't think that things are in decline; I just don't think that they're massively better than they always were. (My main reason for not saying nothing has improved, has been the success of medicinal knowledge.)

I'm not worried about people being greedy - that's not new - I'm worried about the effects of that greed, which are just as severe as the problems faced by Irish people 200 years ago.

This does not prove that there is no goodness in the world. But the fact that the world works in such a way that most people find immoral (mainly the sheer inequality, but there's a litany of other issues), and yet does not become more moral, is evidence that the forces of evil are powerful in people's hearts (that need not mean forces in a personified, religious sense).

Nodin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I just asked my seven year old who goes to a catholic school and he hadn't heard of the devil. Though he had heard of Satan, "some sort of guy from god or something", technically correct perhaps

Youth of today, I despair...

O don't worry. In a few years when he hits puberty he'll have all the Albums.

taztastic

If we accept (and you might not) that the story of God and the devil is an allegory for children to teach them about good and bad then why do we as adults still need to classify people along such simplistic lines? It's so comforting to ascribe someone as evil or bad because of their actions because it means that there is something inherently different about 'them' compared to 'us'. But we are all just humans with precious little to differenciate us.
It saddens me that we just dismiss the plight of others because they have offended the Christian sense of morality. Is that to infere that they deserve AIDS because they slept around? It was the same with the cervical cancer debate - if someone I loved had slept their way through the phone book I wouldn't care so long as they were happy and healthy.

Splendour

MatthewVII wrote: »

As for AIDS being spread by unbiblical activity, it is also spread by biblical activity, ie unprotected sex in a monogamous marriage. Since it is often asymptomatic or with poorly definable symptomatology it is not always a case of knowingly spreading it. And I would argue that proper public health measures would do a lot more than promotion of biblical morals to stop it.

This is a ruling of the Catholic church, not a biblical principal.

Splendour

gubby wrote: »

What happened to the devil ? my granddaughter is getting first communion this year and when I mentioned the devil to her the other day she had no idea what I was on about? Dont the teach about the devil anymore? is he gone?

Unfortunately as Soul Winner has pointed out the Devil is alive and well... However, he has us convinced of his non existence so that he can go about the world doing his work without us realising it.
I think the pendulum has swung too far with regards to the teaching of Satan.
After all if there was no devil then Jesus wouldn't have had to die on the cross so in which case we may as well chuck out the Easter story while we're at it!

Húrin

taztastic wrote: »

It saddens me that we just dismiss the plight of others because they have offended the Christian sense of morality. Is that to infere that they deserve AIDS because they slept around?

It saddens me too. Christians I know (and that's plenty) try to be friends and in cases like this, help those who have "offended the Christian sense of morality" (though this is not every person with AIDS). I've never met anyone who thinks that people deserve AIDS. Christians do not have such a cause-and-effect moral worldview. Love is the Christian law.

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Sorry but if one engages in biblical sexuality one will never contract a sexually transmitted disease via sex.

Please don't tell me you think sex, unbiblical or otherwise, is the only way to contract HIV.

MrP

BrianCalgary

MatthewVII wrote: »

I see what you're getting at, but Brian is specifically suggesting we reject science when he says that these infections can only be transmitted through unbiblical behaviour. His notion that public health measures are another dangerous affront to science..

Excuse me I have not suggested that at all. Please do not put words into peoples mouths it is dishonest.

Re read what I said. Sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted through sexual contact. Are you trying to say that if everyone stuck to one sexual partner their whole life that we'd still have sexually transmitted deiseases?

As for your comment on using clean herion with a clean needle is quite fine. Man oh man, who am I dealing with, have you rver talked to or seen a herion addict? or chatted with someone who was addicted and is now nbot by the grace of God?

Herione is a threat and a toxin to teh human body and taking it is damaging teh temple of the Holy Spirit.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Agreed. Education is the cornerstone of public health. However, in patients who have a HIV diagnosis, condoms should be made available whether they are used or not. Even a small uptake rate would have a benefit, and promoting their use might slowly increase their uptake over time.

And this does not work. Eduaction is very important, education without morality is a shame. And that is for everything not just sex.

BrianCalgary

Bougeoir wrote: »

No I don't deny that there is a much higher risk when engaging in promiscuous sexual activities. But if one does sleep with others outside of relationships or one-night stands (not everyone is lucky to be in a relationship and many do have the human need to have sex it's plain and simple really).

One must learn to control oneself or one may suffer consequences for thei actions. Did you ever consider that people are not 'lucky' enough to be in long term monogamous relationships because they don't want to be for a variety of reason?

Bougeoir wrote: »

well they should be careful and have protection. It will happen people will have sex and flings it has always been there and is not always bad. .

Actually it is. The psychological damage as well as the potential for physical damage, is it worth teh orgasm? Or is that what 21st century life is all about, the pursuit of teh orgasm, regardless of consequences and Satan has the world convinced that it is harmless.

Bougeoir wrote: »

But I am not going to agree with you as I am not a Christian (I'm not an atheist either if that's what you may be thinking). You could say anything is a result of people not living by the Bible but many people who do live by the Bible also justify for committing atrocities. I do agree that the Bible does say a lot of good things but has a lot of immoral thing sin it too. I'm not anti-Christian or anything and I was raised Presbyterian. The point is there will always be this duality in Nature between good and bad. If AIDS were gone tomorrow, there would still be many problems but I tend to be optimistic.

People have used the Bible to justify their atrocities I dont deny that, another case of wisemen being fools. And the sheep that follow them to the gates of Hell.

Doctor DooM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Be reasonable. Use the noggin that God gave you and figure it out. If you object to alcohol use grape juice.



Sorry but if one engages in biblical sexuality one will never contract a sexually transmitted disease via sex.

There are those who do knowngly spread it.

You could argue that until you are blue in the face. Public health measures do not work.

On your first point Brian, the point is not that we object to alcohol, surely he meant that if we are to treat our bodies as temples we should be expected not to touch alcohol.

Secondly, your points on HIV are wrong. For example, one way you could contract HIV trough a biblically AOK relationship would be if one partner contracted HIV through blood transfusion, the other partner could then get it.

In this case for example, the use of a condom would save the partner.

Further more the idea of HIV being evil is just shocking.

Soul Winner

MatthewVII wrote: »

Why do you assume that he is the prince of this world?

Because Jesus referred to him as the prince of this world and Paul referred to him as the prince of the power of the air who holds all mankind in bondage. And he doesn't care what you do in your life as long as you are not doing what God wants you to do. He will applaud all your earthly endeavours as long as they are not furthering God's purposes. He only goes on attack when you start acting in faith on God’s Word. The reason most people don’t believe he exists is because they are not bothering him and his resources are limited so he is not going to waste any attacking them.

MatthewVII wrote: »

I would say that the human race is doing pretty well. By and large, most people are good, honest and participating members of society.

People who live perfectly ordinary lives and who bother nobody but who are also not acting in faith on God's promises are as much in the devil's prison as those who deliberately plot evil against God's purposes and carry it out with their actions. The only thing that can free you from this bondage is acts of faith in God's promises. Nothing else will do it; nothing else will get God's power in you except acts of faith in God's Word. And God’s power is the only power that can deliver you from the power of the prince of this world.

The promise of Jesus is: "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." That means the Church should be a militant force which battles at the gates of hell, it is not in defensive mode holding the forth as some like to picture it. We are to take the battle to the enemy. And 'our weapons of warfare are not carnal but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds." Sadly I see very few churches having this attitude in today's world, they are too busy shooting the wounding and battling each other over stupid irrelevant things. Another victory for the enemy I suppose.

Jesus said: "When I come will I find faith on the earth?" I for one am going to at least try not to disappoint.

MatthewVII

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Re read what I said. Sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted through sexual contact. Are you trying to say that if everyone stuck to one sexual partner their whole life that we'd still have sexually transmitted deiseases?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Just because a disease can be sexually transmitted does not mean that sex is the only way to transmit it. Hence HIV, Hep B+C etc can all be transmitted through contact of body fluids in any fashion. Simple things like sharing the same razor blades can do it. I highly recommend reading up a bit about infectious diseases, they are remarkably easy to transmit in various ways and not a black and white marker of sin.

BrianCalgary wrote:

As for your comment on using clean herion with a clean needle is quite fine. Man oh man, who am I dealing with, have you rver talked to or seen a herion addict? or chatted with someone who was addicted and is now nbot by the grace of God?

Herione is a threat and a toxin to teh human body and taking it is damaging teh temple of the Holy Spirit.

As a medical professional, yes I have talked to and seen quite a large number of heroin addicts. You made a point that use of heroin is damaging to the body. The only damage heroin does to the body is when -

1) The heroin is contaminated with adulterants
2) The heroin is injected using a dirty needle
3) The pursuit of a supply of heroin leads to unsavoury behaviour
4) The pursuit of money to purchase heroin leads to unsavoury behaviour
5) The use of heroin leads on to use of drugs with definite toxicity (e.g. Cocaine)
6) The use of heroin leads to addiction (only with multiple uses)

Heroin itself is a clean drug, a derivative of morphine and was frequently used as an analgesic especially for labour pains (under its medical name, Diamorphine)

Proper heroin has no toxic effects to the body, causing only minor and self limiting side effects that any medication or any substance ingested into the body can have (nausea, vomiting, constipation etc)

Heroin itself is not dangerous. It is dangerous use of heroin which is dangerous. Hence people who use heroin are not damaging their bodies in the strictest sense. While I agree that heroin is something to be avoided, this is because of the behaviours related to heroin, not to the drug itself.

I can't say I've ever seen someone who was addicted and healed by the grace of God, but I have seen plenty who have been healed by the grace of Methadone. But since this has the same physiological effects as heroin, is this a sin and destructive to the temple of the holy spirit too?

BrianCalgary wrote:

And this does not work. Eduaction is very important, education without morality is a shame. And that is for everything not just sex.

Education about safe practice is far more important than tut-tutting people about the morality of their behaviour. You won't change people by telling them they are wrong. You have a chance of changing their behaviour if you explain things to them in a frank, open and honest manner. If you start sermonising and take the moral high ground you achieve much less.

And for the record, far more people are addicted to alcohol and suffer from alcohol-related medical complications than suffer from negative sequelae of heroin use. Even moderate alcohol intake over years can cause sudden decompensation in later life, especially when taking medications like Paracetemol. What you suggest about not damaging the body would mean that pretty much all medications are off limits to the body, for example

-Paracetemol causes liver damage
-Cancer chemotherapy can cause kidney, liver, bone marrow damage
-Anti-tuberculous drugs can cause optic and peripheral nerve damage
-Warfarin can cause intracranial bleeding
-Diuretics can cause kidney failure

And so on. So really, the arguments against heroin are really subjective and open to personal interpretation - one can't blanket bomb drugs. Unless you are willing to avoid any substance that has a potentially deleterious physiological effect for your entire life.

lostinnappies

didnt you know, God has gone all PC.:p

Soul Winner

MatthewVII wrote: »

I can't say I've ever seen someone who was addicted and healed by the grace of God, but I have seen plenty who have been healed by the grace of Methadone. But since this has the same physiological effects as heroin, is this a sin and destructive to the temple of the holy spirit too?

It's curious. This body being the temple of the Lord verse, look at the context that it is said in. It has nothing to do with intoxicating your body with substance abuse which is I agree a very stupid thing to do especially to excess, and that it goes without saying. But take a look the verse itself and then take a look at something Jesus says underneath:

Paul to the Corinthians:

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. 1 Cor 6:18-20

Now Jesus:

"Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'" Mark 7:14-23

Now I wouldn’t use this saying of Jesus as a license to partake in all manner of substance abuse or anything, as this saying appears to be said in the context of food but I’m sure it applies to anything ingested. But nor should Paul’s ‘Temple of the Lord’ verse be used to beat someone up over the same substance use. The context he used that in was to do with sexual immorality not any substance abuse or in-gestation of any substances. ‘Nothing outside of man by going into him can make him unclean’, notice that none of the evils that Jesus mentioned have anything to do with substance abuse, in a sense they are all spiritual evils. Now I agree substance abuse will make you unhealthy but not 'unclean' from God’s point of view. Just thought I’d contrast the two sayings.

sorella

See the saying in context? Jesus was being attacked once again by the Pharisees. Not re food, but for eating with "unwashen hands"

This is not about food, but about the old hygiene laws that said that the exterior must be clean. He goes on to speak re "whited sepuchres". ie hypocrisy. What use having scrubbed hands if you are filthy minded?

Blessings

Soul Winner wrote: »

It's curious. This body being the temple of the Lord verse, look at the context that it is said in. It has nothing to do with intoxicating your body with substance abuse which is I agree a very stupid thing to do especially to excess, and that it goes without saying. But take a look the verse itself and then take a look at something Jesus says underneath:

Paul to the Corinthians:

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. 1 Cor 6:18-20

Now Jesus:

"Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'" Mark 7:14-23

Now I wouldn’t use this saying of Jesus as a license to partake in all manner of substance abuse or anything, as this saying appears to be said in the context of food but I’m sure it applies to anything ingested. But nor should Paul’s ‘Temple of the Lord’ verse be used to beat someone up over the same substance use. The context he used that in was to do with sexual immorality not any substance abuse or in-gestation of any substances. ‘Nothing outside of man by going into him can make him unclean’, notice that none of the evils that Jesus mentioned have anything to do with substance abuse, in a sense they are all spiritual evils. Now I agree substance abuse will make you unhealthy but not 'unclean' from God’s point of view. Just thought I’d contrast the two sayings.

Big Wave

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I see loads of happiness and joy. In the faces of the kids in Guatemala who are just happy to have a new ball to kick about, yet around the corner are the men passed out on the side of the road.

The joy of a new mother; yet the murder of a loved grandfather, father and husband, happeningaround the corner from where 10,000 people thorougly enjoyed a hockey game.

HIV is spread through unbiblical activity: sex ouside a committed monogamous marriage, drug usage, which breaks the 'your body is a temple of teh Holy Spirit'ot to be abused passage.

So HIV is a result of evil. People knowingly having yet and spreading it.

I assume you're a troll, as I've never come across anyone with such ignorant close-minded views in my life.

But what can we expect from someone who follows a fictitious book, listens to paedophiles preach babbling nonsense every Sunday, and all headed by a big homophobic in Rome - yep, we can all sum things up in ignorant, close-minded ways.
So if your wife gets HIV through a blood transfusion, will she go to hell? I assume the answer is yes, since it's all so black & white in your little bubble.
:rolleyes:


Man, I didn't know we were still in the middle ages, and people still actually think like this....un-freakin'-believable.

Big Wave

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And the sheep that follow them to the gates of Hell.

Irony~

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=sheep
See Def #2.

Fanny Cradock

Brilliant!

Fanny Cradock

Big Wave wrote: »

I assume you're a troll, as I've never come across anyone with such ignorant close-minded views in my life.

But what can we expect from someone who follows a fictitious book, listens to paedophiles preach babbling nonsense every Sunday, and all headed by a big homophobic in Rome - yep, we can all sum things up in ignorant, close-minded ways.
So if your wife gets HIV through a blood transfusion, will she go to hell? I assume the answer is yes, since it's all so black & white in your little bubble.
:rolleyes:


Man, I didn't know we were still in the middle ages, and people still actually think like this....un-freakin'-believable.

Just saw this. As it is your first time to visit the forum I'll merely give you an infraction. Now behave!

Húrin

Big Wave wrote: »

I assume you're a troll, as I've never come across anyone with such ignorant close-minded views in my life.

But what can we expect from someone who follows a fictitious book, listens to paedophiles preach babbling nonsense every Sunday, and all headed by a big homophobic in Rome - yep, we can all sum things up in ignorant, close-minded ways.

Hypocrisy much? He is closed-minded, but you have such draconian views of Christians that your accusations do not stand.

If Brian is saying that HIV is exclusively caused by sin, as you are interpreting, then he is completely wrong. I doubt he meant that. But there are acts which cause HIV which are sinful. That doesn't mean that anyone deserves HIV.

ScarlettOHara

Fanny you have a lot of patience and must truly be a Christian to tolerate that sort of downright rudeness and disrespect.

Phototoxin

This is a ruling of the Catholic church, not a biblical principal.

thou shalt not commit adultery ?

Actually it is. The psychological damage as well as the potential for physical damage, is it worth teh orgasm? Or is that what 21st century life is all about, the pursuit of teh orgasm, regardless of consequences and Satan has the world convinced that it is harmless.

+1

On your first point Brian, the point is not that we object to alcohol, surely he meant that if we are to treat our bodies as temples we should be expected not to touch alcohol

why not ? alcohol is just another drug, ecstasy is safer than horseriding for goodness sake... its all about moderations (note : i do not condone ecstasy use or any other illegal drug. I dont really condone alcohol either as most people just get skuppered but that's a different story///)

People who live perfectly ordinary lives and who bother nobody but who are also not acting in faith on God's promises are as much in the devil's prison as those who deliberately plot evil against God's purposes and carry it out with their actions

the bible states 'if he is not against us then he is with us' I thought ?

As a medical professional, yes I have talked to and seen quite a large number of heroin addicts. You made a point that use of heroin is damaging to the body. The only damage heroin does to the body is when -

1) The heroin is contaminated with adulterants
2) The heroin is injected using a dirty needle
3) The pursuit of a supply of heroin leads to unsavoury behaviour
4) The pursuit of money to purchase heroin leads to unsavoury behaviour
5) The use of heroin leads on to use of drugs with definite toxicity (e.g. Cocaine)
6) The use of heroin leads to addiction (only with multiple uses)

Heroin itself is a clean drug, a derivative of morphine and was frequently used as an analgesic especially for labour pains (under its medical name, Diamorphine)

Proper heroin has no toxic effects to the body, causing only minor and self limiting side effects that any medication or any substance ingested into the body can have (nausea, vomiting, constipation etc)

Heroin itself is not dangerous. It is dangerous use of heroin which is dangerous. Hence people who use heroin are not damaging their bodies in the strictest sense. While I agree that heroin is something to be avoided, this is because of the behaviours related to heroin, not to the drug itself.

as a scientist with some toxicological experience ;
+1

and

IWANTURBABIES

And for the record, far more people are addicted to alcohol and suffer from alcohol-related medical complications than suffer from negative sequelae of heroin use. Even moderate alcohol intake over years can cause sudden decompensation in later life, especially when taking medications like Paracetemol. What you suggest about not damaging the body would mean that pretty much all medications are off limits to the body, for example

-Paracetemol causes liver damage
-Cancer chemotherapy can cause kidney, liver, bone marrow damage
-Anti-tuberculous drugs can cause optic and peripheral nerve damage
-Warfarin can cause intracranial bleeding
-Diuretics can cause kidney failure

And so on. So really, the arguments against heroin are really subjective and open to personal interpretation - one can't blanket bomb drugs. Unless you are willing to avoid any substance that has a potentially deleterious physiological effect for your entire life

.
+1
and
IWANTMOREOFURBABIES

But what can we expect from someone who follows a fictitious book, listens to paedophiles preach babbling nonsense every Sunday, and all headed by a big homophobic in Rome - yep, we can all sum things up in ignorant, close-minded ways.

while I agree about teh black and whiteness of it all... i think the emboldened comments themselves were a little ignorant and close minded tbh
Also what about atheiests who believe that the davinci code is true?