The Town of Odyssey

I just tried to read through what I wrote and I have no idea what I'm trying to say either. I think what I may have been trying to speak to is what I see as a hierarchy of sins that Odysseyfan has set up with some sin really just being mistakes, i.e. stealing by forgetting to pay or having a bad attitude about something and some sins being really bad things that saved people wouldn't do and require you to be saved again, such as lying.

Oh ok. Yeah, I would disagree with something not being a sin just because a Christian does it. Stealing, for example, is just as bad no matter who does it but the moral culpability/responsibility can vary depending on whether or not you were aware you were stealing. I think it has to be this way otherwise you fall into situational relativism where people leave it up to themselves to determine what is a sin in what circumstances, etc.

Sherlock wrote:1) Ignorance of a sin doesn't affect the nature of the sin itself, it just affects your culpability for it. So, in the stealing example, it doesn't change the fact that stealing is a sin, just the fact that you aren't morally culpable for it. Most people generally agree that in order to be culpable for a sin you have to know something is wrong and choose to do it anyway.

Yes, thank you Sherlock. Very good, I agree with all that you said.

-- 11 Aug 2011 07:03 am --

Ayn Rand wrote:I just tried to read through what I wrote and I have no idea what I'm trying to say either. I think what I may have been trying to speak to is what I see as a hierarchy of sins that Odysseyfan has set up with some sin really just being mistakes, i.e. stealing by forgetting to pay or having a bad attitude about something and some sins being really bad things that saved people wouldn't do and require you to be saved again, such as lying.

No, I hope it didn't come across to everyone as this, because I don't believe it. I think that a lot of Christian's sometimes think of the more obvious sins as worse, than say, a spirit of pride, or a dissenting spirit. But when you think about it, both will send you to heck, and you have to be careful not to let it creep in. I hope nobody thought that I was trying to set up a hierarchy of sins!

Sorry I must have misunderstood what you said.

Ayn Rand wrote:Sorry I must have misunderstood what you said.

Maybe that's how it came across, but it is not what I meant. I've had a bit of trouble explaining what I mean.

I understand, I have that problem all the time.

So I was reading through the thread and there was one question I still had, if you don't mind. You said that your rules about dress, movies, music, and church services were made by people in your denomination and that you follow them not because they are always necessary to be entirely sanctified or that God always tells people to give those things up or even that Scripture has commands against them but because "the people who originally made our rules made them for good reason." Isn't this being slightly legalistic? I can understand making certain practices normative but if they aren't necessary why require everyone to act a certain way?

Ayn Rand wrote:I understand, I have that problem all the time.

So I was reading through the thread and there was one question I still had, if you don't mind. You said that your rules about dress, movies, music, and church services were made by people in your denomination and that you follow them not because they are always necessary to be entirely sanctified or that God always tells people to give those things up or even that Scripture has commands against them but because "the people who originally made our rules made them for good reason." Isn't this being slightly legalistic? I can understand making certain practices normative but if they aren't necessary why require everyone to act a certain way?

All of our standards come from the Bible. There are certain verses (like the one commanding us not to wear the clothing of the opposite gender) that are very clear, therefore we say the pastors wives may not wear pants. Some of the standards (like the one about TV) don't have a verse saying "Thou shalt not watch thee television." But Psalms 101:3 talks about setting no wicked thing before us. While the television itself isn't bad, most of the programming is. So we don't have TV's. (Except maybe for watching videos, and playing video games.)

OF1, just out of curiosity, why does the clothing rule only apply to Pastors' wives and not all women in your church?

I kind of see where you are on the television thing. I get that. But why have a computer? There's a lot of garbage on the internet. So why would you have a computer?

That’s actually a very good question.
If the reason they don’t watch tv is because the available programs could be bad, even though they have control over which they watch, isn’t it the same for the internet? You shouldn’t have computers because the available sites could be bad, even though you have control over which you view.

One big difference in that (and I may have already said this, it seems familiar) is that no matter how good/non-objectionable the TV show, you have to endure the garbage of commercials. On the computer, you don't normally have that in your face on safe sites. At least that's what my family runs into, and one reason why we have not had a TV for years. Only recently since my granny moved to be with us do we have one, and if she wasn't here anymore the TV would be gone.

So you could watch them online or use Netflix.

Very true. No commercials = a good thing.

Or TiVo? Isn't that the thing that lets you fast-forward through commercials?

Sherlock wrote:OF1, just out of curiosity, why does the clothing rule only apply to Pastors' wives and not all women in your church?

It does apply to the other women! I just said pastor's wives, because in rare situations, people won't become members of the Church because of some of the standards required.

Steve wrote:I kind of see where you are on the television thing. I get that. But why have a computer? There's a lot of garbage on the internet. So why would you have a computer?

Laura Ingalls said part of it. The commercials. Plus even the tame programs (National Geographic, Discovery Channel) are made by the liberal media, and they have all their anti-God, anti-Bible junk in it. (Evolution, pro-choice abortion, ect.) Also, even if my family suddenly stopped believing that TV was bad, I kind of doubt we would get one anyway. Because it's just stupid. If there's a movie we want to watch that badly, we'll get it on DVD.

bookworm wrote:That’s actually a very good question.
If the reason they don’t watch tv is because the available programs could be bad, even though they have control over which they watch, isn’t it the same for the internet? You shouldn’t have computers because the available sites could be bad, even though you have control over which you view.

A lot of the sites I go to don't have ads (.blogspot addresses, the ToO, Napster, CBD, ect.)

I’m really trying to understand you here. I have the basic idea, but I still don’t get it.
I know we went over this already in the other thread, but help me out again.

You don’t watch live tv because there could be objectionable content in things like commercials.
But you do use a tv machine for things like movies, because then you have complete control over what you’re seeing.
Do I have it so far?

Yes.

Sherlock wrote:Or TiVo? Isn't that the thing that lets you fast-forward through commercials?

Yes...unfortunately, that's not feasible. Where we live, the only television service is satellite, and they require you to "lease" one of their own DVRs for almost $200 up front as well has pay a monthly fee to use it. Being as we are not glued to the TV anyway, that is just a little much to pay, especially when nothing is all that good to watch.

Anyway, carry on with the PHC discussion.

Laura Ingalls wrote:

Sherlock wrote:Or TiVo? Isn't that the thing that lets you fast-forward through commercials?

Yes...unfortunately, that's not feasible. Where we live, the only television service is satellite, and they require you to "lease" one of their own DVRs for almost $200 up front as well has pay a monthly fee to use it. Being as we are not glued to the TV anyway, that is just a little much to pay, especially when nothing is all that good to watch.

Anyway, carry on with the PHC discussion.

Or you could end up like I did and buy a cheap antenna and then find out that 8 out of the 10 stations you get are Christian-themed.

bookworm wrote:You don’t watch live tv because there could be objectionable content in things like commercials.
But you do use a tv machine for things like movies, because then you have complete control over what you’re seeing.
Do I have it so far?

odysseyfan1 wrote:Yes.

Okay, good.
Now transferring that to computers (assuming you use the same standards there) the reason they are okay is because you also have control over which sites you view? So it’s assumed to be the equivalent of using a television machine, not the live television where you have lessened control?