Is the seventh and eighth word a record for a thread title do devolve into gibberish?
No it doesn’t. Sin, in the Christian sense of the term, does not exist. And in its more general meaning—i.e., the act of breaking a moral rule—it cannot be transferred. You can try to falsely lay the blame for such a transgression on someone else, and they may accept such blame, but that doesn’t mean that they’re the ones who broke the rule in the first place.
As Oakminster has already pointed out, souls do not exist. Therefore they cannot be tied. Therefore soul ties do not exist.
Witchcraft does not exist.
Spiritual power does not exist.
Three guesses as to what else doesn’t exist…
[quote=“psychonaut, post:42, topic:509008”]
No it doesn’t. Sin, in the Christian sense of the term, does not exist. And in its more general meaning—i.e., the act of breaking a moral rule—it cannot be transferred. You can try to falsely lay the blame for such a transgression on someone else, and they may accept such blame, but that doesn’t mean that they’re the ones who broke the rule in the first place./QUOTE]
FWIW it looks to me like Kanicbird isn’t using the word “sin” in any of its usual English meanings. It looks to me like s/he means something more like what I might call “Existential angst” or something. Anxiety maybe.
One person gets rid of his anxiety by harming another. Now the first person “feels better” while the other person is now all anxious.
That’s the best I can make out from Kanicbird’s posts anyway.
Thus there is no such thing as soul music ?
Maybe, if ‘guilt’ or ‘responsibility’ replaces ‘sin’ it reads a bit more rationally, even in the date-rape scenario (she unwittingly sets a situation up where he becomes responsible). I still think it’s garbage and missing an essential point that ‘rape’ describes a situation, not a motive. A war-crazed soldier wanting to shame the enemy, a kid who’s not going to back down now, a man insisting on ‘conjugal rights’ are all different situations with different motives even if the outcome is much the same. You might as well talk about any other crime like ‘theft’ or ‘murder’ as if every occasion was the same.
Let me start by stating that I think the quote of kanicbird is a giant pile of steaming horseshit.
What are you saying? It’s the bosses fault the employee is a wifebeater? Again, that’s a pile of crap. The employee is responsible for his actions, and your assumption that abuse will, so to speak, roll down hill is a disgusting insult to the majority of people who come home from a bad day at work and DON’T abuse family members or anyone else.
Seriously, what kind of nasty person assumes that someone who has a bad day at work is automatically going to beat his wife?
Again, what kind of jacked up world/family life did you grow up in to think that this sort of thing was normal?
There is no such thing as “bearing the sin of the father” outside of delusional human beings. “Sin” is not cooties, you don’t catch it from other people. Seriously, that’s one of the most pernicious memes to come out of Christianity.
Don’t worry, I am VERY conscious of when I’m performing “witchcraft”. 
Lust is the basis of voodoo? Boy, that’s sure gonna surprise some Voudoun believers I know…
Ah, yes - the evil of a man “submitting” in any way, shape, or form to a woman. Must Not Happen in Kanicbird World.
Really, that muddled “explanation” of date rape is just another way of saying the woman is in control after all and thus it is her fault - in other words, blame the person raped, the rapist is really the “victim”. Did I use my line about a steaming pile of horseshit already? Darn, have to come up with new metaphor.
Again - sin is not cooties, you can’t catch it or give it to someone else. How ridiculous.
Yes, us non-Christians recognize that kanicbird is not typical of your faith. It seems all religions have weirdos.
You’re talking about karma, not sin.
Are you honestly saying that all children of rape victims will grow up to be rapists? Uh-huh, okay. Whatever you say, jack. :rolleyes:
But wait…can’t this be prevented by forcing all rape victims to have abortions?
Believe it or not, I’ve heard worse.
Are you saying that for you, sex is about that? Or for anyone?
Not every case of date rape is like this, but I would define it as she intentionally places herself in a helpless position and/or does not object to the full degree she can*.
- That second one is a bit tricky as she herself might be bound by something that prevents her from fully objection.
For what it’s worth, I think it’s valuable to occasionally hear views that conflict greatly with your own. Those views help shape and define your ideas.
No, but they will need to compensate for any sin of their parents they are bearing in one way or another. This is generational curses as stated in scripture. How the child deals with it is part of the makeup of that child.
No, this just makes it worse on both mother and the soul of that child.
In my view all sin comes from a single source, the devil/Satan. Satan has given a great deal of power in the control over the world, and he has formed humanity into a pyramid (He attempted a tower, but God put a end to that), with himself at the top, with all the results of sin falling to lower and lower levels, with the people at the bottom bearing the greatest weight and with no where to place that sin on. By this pyramid Satan tried to exalt himself above God.
My journey with the Lord made me realize that we are not made bad, and a ‘normal’ person is not ‘better’ then a homeless person, nor a criminal, we are all beloved children of God, but forced to live in this pyramid. The lower end is just under so much pressure that they can not do anything but what sin commands as they are really a slave to sin. All the people in prison, or homeless is a direct result of Satan, and not a flaw in the person, they are really bearing the punishment that Satan should receive by submitting their free will to ‘other gods’ which are not God, thereby placing themselves via free will in the pyramid. Once you are submitted you can not free yourself, though Jesus can.
As such, unless the rapist is Satan Himself, both are victims.
What about soul food? (Does that mean no sweet potato pie? :()
Kanicbird, so I go out on a date with a man. Okay, he drives me home, only when I try to say goodnight, he asks to come in, c’mon, can’t I stay the night, blah blah blah. I keep saying, NO, NO – but he doesn’t care, and he rapes me. This is somehow MY fault? Because that’s usually how date rape works. (Details may vary. Either way, woman says NO, man does it anyways.)
I don’t care what “position” I placed myself in. If someone can’t understand “No”, THAT person is the villain. Not me. The worst you can say is that a victim may be a wee naive. But that is NOT a sin.
Hell, what about child molestation? This would create a “soul tie” between a child and his abuser?
As for a “sin being transferred”, let’s say my boss DOES unload on me and piss me off. But I DON’T go home and abuse my kids – what then? My dad’s often come home, pissed at his boss when I was a kid. And yet, he NEVER came home and abused my mother. OR me or my sister, for that matter. Same with my mom. They might be cranky (who doesn’t get cranky?) But never to the level of abuse.
By your logic, there’s also no such thing as “spousal rape.”
Besides, I think Jesus would say you’re full of shit – and say stop blaming others for YOUR OWN problems. Hello, personal responsibility, people?
(Friar Ted, having been raised Catholic, having been around Christians my entire life, I know Kanicbird is well, “unique”.)
How do you contrive this position with regard to Ezekiel 18:20?
Scripture is unequivocally contradictory concerning the sins of the father. What in your mind distinguishes the matter?
kanicbird, here’s where I am:
I honestly believe you are arguing in good faith. I also believe you are, in your own way, a good person.
However, I do not think your views have much merit. Furthermore, I think they are potentially offensive to some people, and unnecessarily so.
What would you say to that?
This (Ez 18:20) is only after one personally knows and accepts Jesus - the son will be freed from the sins of the father and the father will have to bear them, before that you fall under Duet 5:9, Num 14:18.
Here you can see the new plan:
There are 2 covenants, one the old one where generation curses are a way of dealing with sin, and the one that Jesus offers full forgiveness for just knowing Him.
I understand your point of view and can accept it as it does seem reasonable and does seem to offer some form of justice by providing comfort and satisfaction to who we perceive as the victim and punishment to the perp. It is the normal human response.
I do believe it to be wrong however. I have witnessed people controlled and manipulated by others. Also your point of view means there are defective people, I don’t believe that to be true and very damaging to those people.
These people at the bottom are suffering the greatest injustice and IMHO the people in jail (and other forms of confinement) are the ones bearing the sins of the people who are free.
So the way I look at it your views are far more damaging, and greatly offensive and damaging to people who have absolutely no power.
The book of Ezekiel, as part of the Old Testament, is generally accepted as being written in the 500s B.C., and as such existed before Jesus offered, ‘full forgiveness for knowing him’. Yet the chapter is explicit in the fact that, ‘the son will not share the guilt of the father’. In other words, God had communicated this fact before the second covenant existed. Therefore your explanation is not a solution to the inherent contradiction present in scripture. Logically the only way to sustain your conceit would be to accept that God did not have a consistent position during this time frame. Children were, depending upon which passage you read, either punished or not punished for the sins of their fathers. Your preference for the view that children are punished is not resolved in your terms for half a millennium. It is not a matter scriptural clarity, you are simply choosing to ignore a statement of God’s word because you cannot resolve the contradiction.
The way you stated this, with the ‘Not me’ part seems like denial, it is a issue it appears to me, you are not able to discuss. That is only IMHO but I will go further.
There is a lot that goes hidden in sexual relationships, which is a issue of the heart, and does not mean a physical sexual relationship. When 2 people come together in a close relationship their spirits may unite to some degree. If both parties ‘fantasize’ about each other a sexual relation has started, if only in the heart, though the 2 spirits are linked. This (again IMHO) is the reason for sudden sexual thoughts of one person as the other at that time is thinking about them, as common example is how men, especially in their teens, may get erections when nothing seems to be happening, it is someone thinking about them in a sexual way, their spirit responds and there is a real physical response.
In the same way their spiritual can be having sex while they are out on a date, the act is a continuation of the spiritual sex act.
Unfortunately yes, this is a horrible offense against a sinless (if young enough) person who has to bear the weight of the sin of the molester. The child is in a powerless position and has no choice.
So you are saying that it will have absolutely no effects on your interaction with your kids if you are pissed off - I don’t believe you believe this is true. If you are pissed off at someone and with your kids your kids will pick up on that.
There is no such thing, what there is is marriages that are not based on scriptural principals and have power inequalities that can be exploited. But the 2 are really one person, and a person can not rape themselves. Scripturally marriage between a man and a woman is the same as the relationship of Jesus and the body of believers called the church. Marriage ideally has 2 parts, one the female (or the church) submitting their will and identity totally to the man (or the Lord Jesus), AND equally as important the man (or the Lord Jesus) freeing the woman (or the church) to act totally in His behalf as a totally equal partner. When either the first condition (the woman not fully submitting to the man), or the second condition (the man not fully freeing the woman) is not met then the marriage is not scriptural and not fully protected by God, allowing such things as what you call spousal rape.
Besides, I think Jesus would say you’re full of shit – and say stop blaming others for YOUR OWN problems. Hello, personal responsibility, people?
(Friar Ted, having been raised Catholic, having been around Christians my entire life, I know Kanicbird is well, “unique”.)
[/QUOTE]