Is fornication sinful?

[Never]

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

So you are saying that something is moral because it is pleasurable? In other words, if it feels good, do it? That sounds hedonistic to me. Considering that fornication has various disadvantages and can cause damage, even if the full extent of that damage isn't readily seen, I question the narrative that fornication is good for all parties involved.

No, I didn't say that.  I said "fornication" is morally acceptable in the abstract because there is nothing inherently wrong about consensual safe-sex. And that list you provided is thoroughly ridiculous.  Basically it boils down to, "God said so," and watch out for STDs!!!/unwanted children.  We've dealt with both of those issues.

Can you give me a reason, besides a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the Bible or the idea that sex is inevitably dangerous, that pre-marital sex is morally wrong? 

Do I really need to give you a reason other than my interpretation of the Bible, which I accept as truth, when discussing an topic in the Religion & Philosophy section? I think not, but I will give you a secular argument if that is what you desire...

Premarital sex cheapens sex itself. If you can have sex from anyone without committing to them, where is the value? Sometimes people will use another individual just for sex, and if the person being taken advantage of realizes this, wouldn't he or she be justified in arguing that pre-marital sex was wrong, at least for themself?

There are other complex emotional arguments against pre-marital sex, but since I am not a fornicator, I don't think I will go there.

Here is an interesting source from someone other than me with useful secular arguments against pre-marital sex. 

[bedstuy]

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

So you are saying that something is moral because it is pleasurable? In other words, if it feels good, do it? That sounds hedonistic to me. Considering that fornication has various disadvantages and can cause damage, even if the full extent of that damage isn't readily seen, I question the narrative that fornication is good for all parties involved.

No, I didn't say that.  I said "fornication" is morally acceptable in the abstract because there is nothing inherently wrong about consensual safe-sex. And that list you provided is thoroughly ridiculous.  Basically it boils down to, "God said so," and watch out for STDs!!!/unwanted children.  We've dealt with both of those issues.

Can you give me a reason, besides a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the Bible or the idea that sex is inevitably dangerous, that pre-marital sex is morally wrong? 

Do I really need to give you a reason other than my interpretation of the Bible, which I accept as truth, when discussing an topic in the Religion & Philosophy section? I think not, but I will give you a secular argument if that is what you desire...

Premarital sex cheapens sex itself. If you can have sex from anyone without committing to them, where is the value? Sometimes people will use another individual just for sex, and if the person being taken advantage of realizes this, wouldn't he or she be justified in arguing that pre-marital sex was wrong, at least for themself?

There are other complex emotional arguments against pre-marital sex, but since I am not a fornicator, I don't think I will go there.

Here is an interesting source from someone other than me with useful secular arguments against pre-marital sex. 

Most people aren't religious fundamentalists.  Most religious people here seem to be either religious fundamentalists or sex-phobic, but I think in America most people take a moderate view of religion and sex.  Those moderate people are no less Christian or Islamic or Jewish than you are.  They just live in the real world and they take the specific rules of their religion with a grain of salt.

As for your supposed reason, that's again trying to simplify life with sanctimonious sex-phobic platitudes. 

[Mopsus]

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

So you are saying that something is moral because it is pleasurable? In other words, if it feels good, do it? That sounds hedonistic to me. Considering that fornication has various disadvantages and can cause damage, even if the full extent of that damage isn't readily seen, I question the narrative that fornication is good for all parties involved.

No, I am not saying that something is moral just because it is pleasurable (the Hedonists wouldn't have said that either, for what it's worth). I am saying that before something is declared "immoral", some harm inherent to that thing should have to be proven. That's why I appreciate your attempt to provide examples of the potential harms of premarital sex, even if the examples named on the websites that you linked to were either dubious, avoidable, or only applicable to practicing Christians.

[Never]

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

So you are saying that something is moral because it is pleasurable? In other words, if it feels good, do it? That sounds hedonistic to me. Considering that fornication has various disadvantages and can cause damage, even if the full extent of that damage isn't readily seen, I question the narrative that fornication is good for all parties involved.

No, I didn't say that.  I said "fornication" is morally acceptable in the abstract because there is nothing inherently wrong about consensual safe-sex. And that list you provided is thoroughly ridiculous.  Basically it boils down to, "God said so," and watch out for STDs!!!/unwanted children.  We've dealt with both of those issues.

Can you give me a reason, besides a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the Bible or the idea that sex is inevitably dangerous, that pre-marital sex is morally wrong? 

Do I really need to give you a reason other than my interpretation of the Bible, which I accept as truth, when discussing an topic in the Religion & Philosophy section? I think not, but I will give you a secular argument if that is what you desire...

Premarital sex cheapens sex itself. If you can have sex from anyone without committing to them, where is the value? Sometimes people will use another individual just for sex, and if the person being taken advantage of realizes this, wouldn't he or she be justified in arguing that pre-marital sex was wrong, at least for themself?

There are other complex emotional arguments against pre-marital sex, but since I am not a fornicator, I don't think I will go there.

Here is an interesting source from someone other than me with useful secular arguments against pre-marital sex. 

Most people aren't religious fundamentalists.  Most religious people here seem to be either religious fundamentalists or sex-phobic, but I think in America most people take a moderate view of religion and sex.  Those moderate people are no less Christian or Islamic or Jewish than you are.  They just live in the real world and they take the specific rules of their religion with a grain of salt.

As for your supposed reason, that's again trying to simplify life with sanctimonious sex-phobic platitudes. 

Maybe you are right, perhaps most people aren't religious fundamentalists, but most people are not going to go to heaven either (Matthew 7:13-14 - NIV: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) It does not matter if only a few people believe something as long as it is truthful. Anyhow, there are a great deal of conservative Christians in America, at the very least. The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest religious denomination in America with several million adherents, and it holds very many fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path.

I would never shape my worldview on the conventional wisdom of Americans, because I find it necessary to think for myself. I didn't become a conservative Christian overnight. It took quite some time for me to understand how Christ wanted me to view the world after I placed faith in Him as my Savior. I cannot in good conscience write off something because my culture doesn't like it.

It is pretty clear that this is a good place to end our discussion. I am glad that we had this debate, and I hope that we will both take something from it.

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

So you are saying that something is moral because it is pleasurable? In other words, if it feels good, do it? That sounds hedonistic to me. Considering that fornication has various disadvantages and can cause damage, even if the full extent of that damage isn't readily seen, I question the narrative that fornication is good for all parties involved.

No, I am not saying that something is moral just because it is pleasurable (the Hedonists wouldn't have said that either, for what it's worth). I am saying that before something is declared "immoral", some harm inherent to that thing should have to be proven. That's why I appreciate your attempt to provide examples of the potential harms of premarital sex, even if the examples named on the websites that you linked to were either dubious, avoidable, or only applicable to practicing Christians.

Thank you for saying that you appreciated my cited sources, even though you basically took a backhanded swipe at them. I honestly am unfazed whether you don't care for Christian websites, even ones like About.com (which has been owned by the New York Times, not exactly a hotbed of prudes on sexual issues).

Although I believe that premarital sex is harmful, and you don't seem to hold that view, I am glad that we were able to have this conversation.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path. 

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

I'm just glad that this sense of certainty and false security you've created for yourself is enough for you to get by in this life.  After all, most of us are going to hell, as you said.  Shouldn't someone be happy?

[Deus Naturae]

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path. 

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

You realize there are tons of Christians who believe this, right? You may find it disgusting, but it's hardly unique to this guy. I'm pretty sure most large Christian denominations teach that view.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path. 

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

You realize there are tons of Christians who believe this, right? You may find it disgusting, but it's hardly unique to this guy. I'm pretty sure most large Christian denominations teach that view.

And an increasing number of them are not.

Even if 99% of Christian churches taught it, why should that change my perspective?  We're only going by what we think is right here, are we not?

[Deus Naturae]

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path. 

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

You realize there are tons of Christians who believe this, right? You may find it disgusting, but it's hardly unique to this guy. I'm pretty sure most large Christian denominations teach that view.

And an increasing number of them are not.

Even if 99% of Christian churches taught it, why should that change my perspective?  We're only going by what we think is right here, are we not?

Sure, I'm just pointing out that Never doesn't believe that stuff because he's a demented weirdo. He believes it because it's what mainstream Christianity teaches.

[TJ in Oregon]

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

Scott, do you believe non-Progressive Christians are going to hell for our beliefs?

Note: I don't quite believe in what Never Convinced posted, I believe in Invincible Ignorance, but that's beside the point.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

Scott, do you believe non-Progressive Christians are going to hell for our beliefs?

Note: I don't quite believe in what Never Convinced posted, I believe in Invincible Ignorance, but that's beside the point.

Well, because you guys don't interpret the Bible the same way I do, I'd say yes - you are most certainly going to Hell.

Does that make you feel better?

[TJ in Oregon]

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

Scott, do you believe non-Progressive Christians are going to hell for our beliefs?

Note: I don't quite believe in what Never Convinced posted, I believe in Invincible Ignorance, but that's beside the point.

Well, because you guys don't interpret the Bible the same way I do, I'd say yes - you are most certainly going to Hell.

Does that make you feel better?

No, because now I'm unsure of whether or not you're being serious and am also unsure if you were of what your actual answer would be.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

Scott, do you believe non-Progressive Christians are going to hell for our beliefs?

Note: I don't quite believe in what Never Convinced posted, I believe in Invincible Ignorance, but that's beside the point.

Well, because you guys don't interpret the Bible the same way I do, I'd say yes - you are most certainly going to Hell.

Does that make you feel better?

No, because now I'm unsure of whether or not you're being serious and am also unsure if you were of what your actual answer would be.

While I find it a tad amusing that you couldn't tell whether or not I was being serious, I'm mostly saddened that it wasn't obvious.

As far as my personal opinion of Hell goes, I've already spoken about it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe you are right, perhaps most people aren't religious fundamentalists, but most people are not going to go to heaven either (Matthew 7:13-14 - NIV: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) It does not matter if only a few people believe something as long as it is truthful. Anyhow, there are a great deal of conservative Christians in America, at the very least. The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest religious denomination in America with several million adherents, and it holds very many fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path.

I would never shape my worldview on the conventional wisdom of Americans, because I find it necessary to think for myself. I didn't become a conservative Christian overnight. It took quite some time for me to understand how Christ wanted me to view the world after I placed faith in Him as my Savior. I cannot in good conscience write off something because my culture doesn't like it.

As a Universalist I hold to a radically different interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14.  Jesus there is not proclaiming that only a few will be saved.  Rather he is proclaiming that only a few are able to find the way on their own without some form of guidance.  Jesus is certainly one guide to the narrow path, yet as he himself states in that passage, he is not the only potential guide, as those few others who find the narrow path on their own are also available as guides to the one true Way that Christ the Mediator shows us humans.

[Meursault]

Don't most fundamentalist Christians believe salvation belongs "first to the Jew, then also to the Gentile", and that (theistic) Jews are saved by virtue of being God's elect?

Never's statement to the contrary is a far cry from what I was taught by Hagee, van Impe, etc. as one of the sheeple.

[DC Al Fine]

Liberal Protestantism has turned the world upside down. Who would've thought 100 years ago that someone like me would agree with Catholics more than I would with a Congregationalist

[Never]

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path. 

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

You realize there are tons of Christians who believe this, right? You may find it disgusting, but it's hardly unique to this guy. I'm pretty sure most large Christian denominations teach that view.

And an increasing number of them are not.

Even if 99% of Christian churches taught it, why should that change my perspective?  We're only going by what we think is right here, are we not?

Sure, I'm just pointing out that Never doesn't believe that stuff because he's a demented weirdo. He believes it because it's what mainstream Christianity teaches.

Thank you, Speaker Deus.

Yes, I believe hell is a very real place, but I don't want anyone to go there. Honestly, I am unhappy at the thought of Scott being condemned to hell for not becoming a Christian, and knowing that any of my current non-Christian friends and family (like my grandmother and several of my aunts, uncles, and cousins) will be condemned to hell because they did not accept salvation before they die.

I don't believe that Islam and Judaism are paths to heaven; only Christianity is. I can be a very forward person, and I will let someone know that I am a Christian upfront and that I believe faith in Christ is the only way to heaven if asked about my religious beliefs. I can never back down from that, because I want as many people as possible to go to heaven. If that makes me a "sad excuse of a human being", so be it. I am not trying to start a flame war here.

Maybe you are right, perhaps most people aren't religious fundamentalists, but most people are not going to go to heaven either (Matthew 7:13-14 - NIV: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) It does not matter if only a few people believe something as long as it is truthful. Anyhow, there are a great deal of conservative Christians in America, at the very least. The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest religious denomination in America with several million adherents, and it holds very many fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path.

I would never shape my worldview on the conventional wisdom of Americans, because I find it necessary to think for myself. I didn't become a conservative Christian overnight. It took quite some time for me to understand how Christ wanted me to view the world after I placed faith in Him as my Savior. I cannot in good conscience write off something because my culture doesn't like it.

As a Universalist I hold to a radically different interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14.  Jesus there is not proclaiming that only a few will be saved.  Rather he is proclaiming that only a few are able to find the way on their own without some form of guidance.  Jesus is certainly one guide to the narrow path, yet as he himself states in that passage, he is not the only potential guide, as those few others who find the narrow path on their own are also available as guides to the one true Way that Christ the Mediator shows us humans.

Well, I do not fully understand Universalist views on some issues, I do believe that I may defend my own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 by pointing out Jesus' response to a question by Thomas in John 14:5-6 (NIV):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, after reading that, I believe it clears up Jesus' comments on the narrow path to heaven by saying in the Gospel of John that he is the only guide and the only way to heaven. Jesus didn't say that he is a way, rather, Jesus said he is the way. It is my belief that Jesus is saying few will accept Christ as Savior in Matthew 7:13-14.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe you are right, perhaps most people aren't religious fundamentalists, but most people are not going to go to heaven either (Matthew 7:13-14 - NIV: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) It does not matter if only a few people believe something as long as it is truthful. Anyhow, there are a great deal of conservative Christians in America, at the very least. The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest religious denomination in America with several million adherents, and it holds very many fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path.

I would never shape my worldview on the conventional wisdom of Americans, because I find it necessary to think for myself. I didn't become a conservative Christian overnight. It took quite some time for me to understand how Christ wanted me to view the world after I placed faith in Him as my Savior. I cannot in good conscience write off something because my culture doesn't like it.

As a Universalist I hold to a radically different interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14.  Jesus there is not proclaiming that only a few will be saved.  Rather he is proclaiming that only a few are able to find the way on their own without some form of guidance.  Jesus is certainly one guide to the narrow path, yet as he himself states in that passage, he is not the only potential guide, as those few others who find the narrow path on their own are also available as guides to the one true Way that Christ the Mediator shows us humans.

Well, I do not fully understand Universalist views on some issues, I do believe that I may defend my own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 by pointing out Jesus' response to a question by Thomas in John 14:5-6 (NIV):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, after reading that, I believe it clears up Jesus' comments on the narrow path to heaven by saying in the Gospel of John that he is the only guide and the only way to heaven. Jesus didn't say that he is a way, rather, Jesus said he is the way. It is my belief that Jesus is saying few will accept Christ as Savior in Matthew 7:13-14.

I take it that Jesus here is speaking metaphorically, identifying himself with the Way that his life was a prime example of.  Hence I take it that he is emphasizing that his way is the only way.

Yet clearly, the ministry of Jesus was not about getting people to pay homage to him.  Consider the remainder of what he says in Matthew 7:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’ “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!”

One knows the value of a tree not by its name, but by its fruit.  Doing good works in the name of Jesus does not gain salvation.  The principle difference between our views seems to be that you consider the Persona of Jesus to be the principal thing we should revere whereas I believe the Way that Jesus taught and exemplified via his persona is the principal thing we should revere.

[Never]

Maybe you are right, perhaps most people aren't religious fundamentalists, but most people are not going to go to heaven either (Matthew 7:13-14 - NIV: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) It does not matter if only a few people believe something as long as it is truthful. Anyhow, there are a great deal of conservative Christians in America, at the very least. The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest religious denomination in America with several million adherents, and it holds very many fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path.

I would never shape my worldview on the conventional wisdom of Americans, because I find it necessary to think for myself. I didn't become a conservative Christian overnight. It took quite some time for me to understand how Christ wanted me to view the world after I placed faith in Him as my Savior. I cannot in good conscience write off something because my culture doesn't like it.

As a Universalist I hold to a radically different interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14.  Jesus there is not proclaiming that only a few will be saved.  Rather he is proclaiming that only a few are able to find the way on their own without some form of guidance.  Jesus is certainly one guide to the narrow path, yet as he himself states in that passage, he is not the only potential guide, as those few others who find the narrow path on their own are also available as guides to the one true Way that Christ the Mediator shows us humans.

Well, I do not fully understand Universalist views on some issues, I do believe that I may defend my own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 by pointing out Jesus' response to a question by Thomas in John 14:5-6 (NIV):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, after reading that, I believe it clears up Jesus' comments on the narrow path to heaven by saying in the Gospel of John that he is the only guide and the only way to heaven. Jesus didn't say that he is a way, rather, Jesus said he is the way. It is my belief that Jesus is saying few will accept Christ as Savior in Matthew 7:13-14.

I take it that Jesus here is speaking metaphorically, identifying himself with the Way that his life was a prime example of.  Hence I take it that he is emphasizing that his way is the only way.

Yet clearly, the ministry of Jesus was not about getting people to pay homage to him.  Consider the remainder of what he says in Matthew 7:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’ “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!”

One knows the value of a tree not by its name, but by its fruit.  Doing good works in the name of Jesus does not gain salvation.  The principle difference between our views seems to be that you consider the Persona of Jesus to be the principal thing we should revere whereas I believe the Way that Jesus taught and exemplified via his persona is the principal thing we should revere.

Just to be clear, I do not believe in faith by works. I think you are right that Jesus did not have a self-centered ministry; through his actions, we can tell that he wanted to have a positive impact on the spiritual lives of others, and through his death on the cross, he wanted everyone to have a chance to accept salvation and spend eternity in heaven.

Do I appreciate the Persona of Jesus? Yes, but I also appreciate the Way of Jesus as you do. I don't think it would be a good idea to just have one without the other. If we only had Jesus' persona, I suspect he would just be very good person, as individuals like Gandhi felt, but if we only had the Way of Jesus, it would be practically identical to God the Father.

[windjammer]

Liberal Protestantism has turned the world upside down. Who would've thought 100 years ago that someone like me would agree with Catholics more than I would with a Congregationalist

DC, in france protestants have always been more liberalthan ccatholic. In 1905 it was them who lobbied for the separation of church and state

[DC Al Fine]

Liberal Protestantism has turned the world upside down. Who would've thought 100 years ago that someone like me would agree with Catholics more than I would with a Congregationalist

DC, in france protestants have always been more liberalthan ccatholic. In 1905 it was them who lobbied for the separation of church and state

That's true, but I was talking about theology not not politics.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path. 

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

You realize there are tons of Christians who believe this, right? You may find it disgusting, but it's hardly unique to this guy. I'm pretty sure most large Christian denominations teach that view.

And an increasing number of them are not.

Even if 99% of Christian churches taught it, why should that change my perspective?  We're only going by what we think is right here, are we not?

Sure, I'm just pointing out that Never doesn't believe that stuff because he's a demented weirdo. He believes it because it's what mainstream Christianity teaches.

Thank you, Speaker Deus.

Yes, I believe hell is a very real place, but I don't want anyone to go there. Honestly, I am unhappy at the thought of Scott being condemned to hell for not becoming a Christian, and knowing that any of my current non-Christian friends and family (like my grandmother and several of my aunts, uncles, and cousins) will be condemned to hell because they did not accept salvation before they die.

I don't believe that Islam and Judaism are paths to heaven; only Christianity is. I can be a very forward person, and I will let someone know that I am a Christian upfront and that I believe faith in Christ is the only way to heaven if asked about my religious beliefs. I can never back down from that, because I want as many people as possible to go to heaven. If that makes me a "sad excuse of a human being", so be it. I am not trying to start a flame war here.

And many of those religious people you say are going to hell, quite ironically, think you are going to hell for being a Christian and not embracing their religion.  But that's beside the point.

I think I've made it plainly obvious on here that I am a Christian.  I would never compromise on what I say I believe, but I realize my beliefs deviate so far from what the fundamentalists believe that, in some circles, I would not be considered a Christian.  And I am absolutely fine with that.  If I don't pass a person's litmus test, I don't care what group they want to lump me with that isn't Christian.  If I need to be excluded from that person's vision of Heaven for them to feel more righteous and more secure about themselves, who am I to say they can't?  I might not return the favor, but, hey, such is why we have freedom of religion.

Just don't expect horror stories, empty threats, or cherrypicked Bible verses to sway me to your side, because they won't.

[Never]

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path. 

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

You realize there are tons of Christians who believe this, right? You may find it disgusting, but it's hardly unique to this guy. I'm pretty sure most large Christian denominations teach that view.

And an increasing number of them are not.

Even if 99% of Christian churches taught it, why should that change my perspective?  We're only going by what we think is right here, are we not?

Sure, I'm just pointing out that Never doesn't believe that stuff because he's a demented weirdo. He believes it because it's what mainstream Christianity teaches.

Thank you, Speaker Deus.

Yes, I believe hell is a very real place, but I don't want anyone to go there. Honestly, I am unhappy at the thought of Scott being condemned to hell for not becoming a Christian, and knowing that any of my current non-Christian friends and family (like my grandmother and several of my aunts, uncles, and cousins) will be condemned to hell because they did not accept salvation before they die.

I don't believe that Islam and Judaism are paths to heaven; only Christianity is. I can be a very forward person, and I will let someone know that I am a Christian upfront and that I believe faith in Christ is the only way to heaven if asked about my religious beliefs. I can never back down from that, because I want as many people as possible to go to heaven. If that makes me a "sad excuse of a human being", so be it. I am not trying to start a flame war here.

And many of those religious people you say are going to hell, quite ironically, think you are going to hell for being a Christian and not embracing their religion.  But that's beside the point.

I think I've made it plainly obvious on here that I am a Christian.  I would never compromise on what I say I believe, but I realize my beliefs deviate so far from what the fundamentalists believe that, in some circles, I would not be considered a Christian.  And I am absolutely fine with that.  If I don't pass a person's litmus test, I don't care what group they want to lump me with that isn't Christian.  If I need to be excluded from that person's vision of Heaven for them to feel more righteous and more secure about themselves, who am I to say they can't?  I might not return the favor, but, hey, such is why we have freedom of religion.

Just don't expect horror stories, empty threats, or cherrypicked Bible verses to sway me to your side, because they won't.

I don't really know what you stand for and what you consider to be Christian beliefs. Someone can say that they are a Christian and not be one, but since you say that you are a Christian and I am not aware of your beliefs, I will not pass any judgment on you.

Based on your response, I don't think you would want me to advance this conversation any further, so I won't. You are entitled to your beliefs while you are here on earth, but at the end we are all going to be accountable for what we stood for during our lives.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just to be clear, I do not believe in faith by works.

Nor did I think you did.  However, I tend to view the act of calling Jesus "Lord, Lord" as being an example of work rather than faith for many, but not all, who do so.  It gets tricky with works, for works proceed from true faith as is pointed out in James 1:25 "But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act—they will be blessed in their doing."  (And don't forget James 2:14-17!)  Yet while faith generates works, not all works are generated by faith. (See the aforementioned Matthew 7:21-23.)  Moreover as the tale of the widow's mite underscores, it is not in absolute terms, but relative terms that works can be viewed as evidence of faith.

[Simfan34]

Ernest, how do you reconcile your view that it is not sinful with what is in the Bible?

Furthermore I feel abstinence shows a certain maturity- after all, isn't self-denial and restraint part of maturity? For the same reason one would not eat a cake if you were trying to lose weight, or even on any occasion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest, how do you reconcile your view that it is not sinful with what is in the Bible?

Furthermore I feel abstinence shows a certain maturity- after all, isn't self-denial and restraint part of maturity? For the same reason one would not eat a cake if you were trying to lose weight, or even on any occasion.

Simple, I don't have to reconcile that because that's not my view.  My view is not that fornication is not sinful, but that relationships that under our legal system are today considered fornication would not be considered fornication but a form of marriage back when not all marriages were sanctified by either the state or a church.