New Sins

[unsubstantial]

My question is, have there been new sins created from whoever decided the sins from whatever religion? If so who decides this, and how can people keep up to date with things like this? So many religions say this is wrong but this is right. How are we supposed to know who's right? What broght this on is this old guy who was going round haning ot leaflet about the film "the passion of Christ" He was saying it shows the pain and suffering he went through for mankind, and blah blah blah. But i think anyone can tell you that and he was just using this movie to make it seem more glamorous and such. I mean this religious guy was saying how good it was, then we get these other religious folks bashing the hell out of it. What was i trying to say again? Ah yes...religion is bull****

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

In order to avoid sounding bossy or some such thing, let me qualify that the following are my personal beliefs, and I'm not trying to force them on anyone.

Originally posted by unsubstantial
My question is, have there been new sins created from whoever decided the sins from whatever religion?

No, what is and is not a sin is part of the natural law and has been the same since the beginning of time and will be the same till the end of time.

If so who decides this, and how can people keep up to date with things like this?

No one decides, not even God. God is bound by His own nature from sinning. Goodness is intrinsic to His being and thus intrinsic to the universe, which exists only because God communicates being to it.

So many religions say this is wrong but this is right. How are we supposed to know who's right?

The first test you should apply to all religious belief systems is the coherence test. If the belief system contains logical inconsistencies and internal contradictions, it is false. Then apply the repugnance test. If the beliefs strike you as horribly immoral and unjust they are probably false. But please do not exclude from the realm of the possible beliefs which only strike you as icky or somewhat gross. After the repugnance test, compare the religious claims with empirical evidence. If any of a religion's claims about history or its sacred texts
can be falsified, the religion is false. Finally, analyze how the teachings of the religion manifest themselves in the lives of their adherents. If the fruit is good, the tree is good, and if the fruit is bad, the tree is bad. But try to befair and unbiased in this search.

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan
The first test you should apply to all religious belief systems is the coherence test. If the belief system contains logical inconsistencies and internal contradictions, it is false.

This from a man who believes that bread and wine actually, physically, turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, and then ingests said body parts. I've never partaken, so I'm curious... does the host actually taste like flesh, and does the wine actually taste like blood?

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Transubstantiation might sound incredible, but the doctrine contains no internal contradictions.

To answer your question, no, at least none of the time's I've taken Communion. The hosts used by the Roman Rite tase like very bland crackers, and the hosts used by the Byzantine Rite taste like chunks of bread soaked in wine. I far prefer the Byzantine hosts, since the Latin hosts tend to cleave to the pallet.

If you want to read about the extraordinary cases wherein the miracle of transformation has occurred, here's a book for you:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

You see bread and wine, you smell bread and wine, you taste bread and wine. All your senses tell you you are being given bread and wine and yet you see nothing illogical in believing that you are really ingesting the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, who ceased to have any flesh or blood almost 2000 years ago.

[Runrig-Fan]

I'm not christian, but if you take the seven deadly sins and think about them logically you will find out that they all really are bad things, either they harm yourself or people around you or make your own life harder, if you are e.g. very vain... nobody would like that

But then other sins like naughty thoughts, sex before marriage... well I don't even know if God himself (if he exists) said that. Maybe the people who wrote the bible added whatever suited them... or maybe the church later set up these rules.

One thing that always makes me angry is the line that no man should lie with another man as with a woman (I don't know the exact words as I haven't read the whole bible ). So if God really dislikes that, then why did he "create" homosexuals? Oh this is a very complex topic... I'm gonna comment on it anyway *g*
The argument that it's not natural is rubbish because there is homosexuality among animals as well. It's proven. Furthermore I ask myself why this line is just about MEN and not women... so God accepts lesbians but dislikes gay guys? Right, I forgot... God is male

I really think that some sins or rules, even those written in the bible have been added by people because they thought they should write it. If God really exists, I don't think he's that narrow minded.

[unsubstantial]

I don't know. I don't think the bible said anything about abortion either and all these christian nuts sayin it's wrong, same as euthanasia i think. Which i think is the wrong way to go about things. I'm all for thinning out our numbers. Abbortions should be ok as the baby thing is nothing more than a mass of cells and besides all kids are the same till a certain age. Hospitals are just keeping people alive that should be dead already. As for gays, well who the hell should care? It doesn't affect anyone and if there are people who think it's a hell worthy sin well so be it there going to hell and if they are, you shouldn't make there lives miserable if this is the best they will have it.