Women political bloggers
The Political Voices of Women blog has amassed a list of ~350 women blogging on politics, and I’m happy to be included.
This is something to me, especially considering Technorati counted 112 million blogs worldwide as of December.
The women listed cover the political spectrum, from Feminist Fire, Citizen Jane Politics, and Washington Woman, to Mary Katherine Ham, Michelle Malkin, and… me!
PVW accumulated the growing list in response to New York Times columnist Katharine Seelye’s question, “Are more men engaged in politics online than women?” She said….
We know that women slightly outnumber men online. But at least anecdotally, it seems as if more men are on the political blogs, writing specifically about politics, reading about politics and putting in their two cents in the comments sections. Did you notice how many more men compared to women submitted videos for the Democratic YouTube debate in July?
Seelye informally polled readers and guessed as many as 3x the number of men argue politics online than women.
Reasons? Women are too busy; men are more interested in the competition of politics as sport; men are more interested in political braggadocio, showing off how much they know; men are louder; politically opining women are attacked more and may not be able to handle typical online rancor.
Seelye contacted a few prominent women bloggers who agreed:
[W]omen were re-defining politics online, away from conventional male-dominated sites that were obsessed with the horse race and toward sites that wove politics into the fabric of women’s lives.
I’m not sure what that means. Is it that women are taking politics from just a debate about who’s winning to one of issues? Or is it that we’re changing political priorities?
I think the latter is true. The problem for conservatives is, generally speaking, liberal blogs tend to be louder, meaner, and verbal bomb throwers, censoring debate.
I theorize political priorities have not been reshaped based on thoughts of all women but on thoughts of loud women, who even scare conservative politicians from saying much on the life issue.
[HT: Onetenaciousbabymama.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The problem for conservatives is, generally speaking, liberal blogs tend to be louder, meaner, and verbal bomb throwers, censoring debate.
lol
Jill,
I am so proud of you! Your “voice” is truly special to me and so many others. I am so grateful for people like you, who don’t sit back and just hope things change, or pray for things to change, but actually get out there and do something to bring about change and provoke thought.
I cringe to think how the world would be without “voices” like yours in the world.
I look up to you, Jill, and thank God for you.
:)
Congrats, Jill.
I love this blog. I’m pretty obsessed with it lol.
JLM, well, thanks. I appreciate your saying you look up to me, but that only means I’m only perched somewhere awaiting a fall… :)
Elizabeth, I love obsessions to this blog. lol
Jill,
Nope, you’re glued. You ain’t goin’ nowhere!
Isaiah 40:31
But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
I like you, JLM!!
Oh, you too, Jill! :)
I like you too, Carla!
(can you feel the love?????)
:)
“The list is now in alphabetical order. If you would like something added to your link, or you would like your blog added to this list
Hi Jill.
Thanks so much for your kind recognition of my blog. I welcome everyone to check it out, and send me any links of women who have been overlooked. I can’t do it alone. :-)
And Jill, I echo the sentiments here, I think you have a great blog. And if you would ever like to be a guest blogger at The Political Voices of Women, just let me know.
Best,
Catherine
FF,
While you’re here, could I ask you to provide me with a link to Jim Bob Duggar and the white supremist group you mentioned? I’d be very interested in reading it.
Thank you.
I regret greatly women being allowed to have their votes counted. Here is why.
“Give us suffrage, and we?ll give you socialism.” — Susan B Anthony
Need I say more? Maybe. Hear Ann Coulter’s explanation here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmDg9t5M5dI
” …liberal blogs tend to be louder, meaner, and verbal bomb throwers, censoring debate.”
I don’t know which “liberal” blogs you’ve been reading, but I have found the opposite to be true. There is much more civil conversation going on with us “liberal” bloggers — you just have to find us. No need to “argue” politics — why not just discuss them??
I went there and added a couple more of the estrogen-based blogs I like.
Posted by: FetusFascist at February 25, 2008 12:35 PM
Ah the irony.
estrogen, named so for the fertility goddess Oeste
you know fertility, like reproduction, having kids,
*votes Democrat just to let Zeke know how much I care*
*blows a kiss*
:D
Come on, hit me with a Bible quote, tell me I’m a Jezebel. Can’t wait. :D
*giggles and dances around* I’ve got the vote, na na na na na na!!!
“Give us suffrage, and we’ll give you socialism.” — Susan B Anthony
Dear Bobby,
Sorry I haven
Hey doood!
“Sorry I haven
Bobby,
“You may have in mind this idea that many Protestants believe which is called “once saved, always saved.” What this means is that once you “accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour,” you are “saved” and will go to heaven no matter what. There is nothing you can do to lose your salvation. Hence, it may be viewed as a “sin all you like, go to heaven free” card. So if that’s what you have in mind (and I’m sure Protestants can defend it from that point of view), the idea of once saved always saved (OSAS) is condemned by the Catholic Church. We believe that one can lose their salvation, even many many times over a lifetime (I know I have probably hundreds of times). The only thing that will “get you into heaven” is true repentance and sorrow for ones sins. So someone with the attitude “I’ll just sin all I want until I’m on my deathbed and then repent” probably doesn’t have a sincere sense of repentance. Being sorry for sins means you never intend to do those sins again.”
That does, admittedly, make more sense and sounds a great deal more equitable.
“Right, right. Here is the Catholic understanding of hell. Hell is not so in it’s essence a punishment, yet a choice that one makes. So here’s the idea or theology behind it; we believe that God created human beings to be with God forever, that it is part of their nature. In other words, the whole reason we were created, the whole purpose of our being, is union with God (whatever that means). Having said that, I think it follows that if one is not in union with God, this would cause tremendous pain and suffering.”
So hell is simply a complete and total absence of God or the divine presence? There’s no fire or brimstone or all of those other elements that I’ve always been taught are in hell? The only form of suffering would be due to the lack of God’s prescence, and nothing else?
I distinctly recall a Child’s Book of Devotions that my aunt once gave me that have a very vivid description of hell: full of fire and all kinds of other nasty things. I wasn’t very religious even then, but I remember questioning why anyone would ever want to believe in a god who allowed this sort of thing.
“Okay now, just like any loving parent, God accepts and respects the free will personal choice that one wishes to make about being with him. If one doesn’t like their parents here on earth and wants nothing to do with them, the parents can’t force their child to like them or spend time with them etc. We believe this to be true of God as well; that if one doesn’t want to be with him rejects him, and wants to have nothing to do with him, God loves us enough to respect our decision to not be with him. Hence, he cuts himself off for that individual, which as we discussed above, is the very definition of pain and suffering i.e. hell.”
Somehow, I still see this as being slightly vindictive. Basically, it would come down to this: by definition, God would be responsible for the intellectual capacities and such that even make it possible for us to quesiton His existence. Yet this same God would willingly condemn his children for using his gifts–that doesn’t seem very fatherly to me.
Additionally, there’s that whole issue of conversion after death, which you mentioned briefly. In my experience, parents don’t give up on their children and don’t condemn them to the worst possible fate that exists, even if they are guilty of past mistakes. What kind of parent turns away from a child at the moment when that child says “I was wrong and I need you?”
“Yes indeed. And I think from any point of view it makes sense; the idea that one can not be held responsible for what one doesn’t know or didn’t willingly partake in. Now obviously in the real world, those criteria seem a bit subjective and would be hard to argue. But if God exists and is all knowing, he obviously knows what one’s true intentions and understanding a particular act are.”
This raises an interesting question: are non-believers able to commit mortal sins? All of the conditions do not apply; hence, why are they considered to be capable of sin? Doesn’t one have to be a believer in order to do so?
“In fact Enigma, because of you (you have gotten me to read more than everyone else on this blog combined) I’m currently reading a book called “Introduction to Moral Theology” which goes through all sorts of facets of morality, sin, natural law, etc. The church has had 2000 years of study to reflect on these kinds of issues, so there is a lot of complexity and depth and (I think) well-thought-out-ness to these doctrines.”
Reading and further research is always good; I must admit, it’s kind of gratifying to know this. :)
Have a good day.
HI Enigma.
“That does, admittedly, make more sense and sounds a great deal more equitable.”
Good :)
“So hell is simply a complete and total absence of God or the divine presence? There’s no fire or brimstone or all of those other elements that I’ve always been taught are in hell? The only form of suffering would be due to the lack of God’s prescence, and nothing else?”
That is correct. There may be some sort of physical element like that because we believe in the resurrection of the body for both those who are saved and not saved, but the pain of hell is separation from God. Fire is used a lot to describe the kind of pain that will be suffered, but it does not mean a literal fire. In fact many of the saints describe the pains of purgatory (place where you go right before heaven to be cleansed) as fire, because it’s this burning, a longing to be finally united with God, which of course those souls in purgatory will eventually be. So fire and flames are used to describe even what saved people will feel. (see again, this is the problem when one reads the bible LITERALLY, as in “the words on the pages mean exactly what they say” and not looking at a larger context, but I digress.)
“I distinctly recall a Child’s Book of Devotions that my aunt once gave me that have a very vivid description of hell: full of fire and all kinds of other nasty things. I wasn’t very religious even then, but I remember questioning why anyone would ever want to believe in a god who allowed this sort of thing.”
I must admit, I think there is a lot of bad information out there. Actually, to be honest, the things I”m telling you are (as far as I know) those beliefs which one must hold in order to be a Catholic in good standing. I suppose some Catholics (like Zeke, I don’t know if you know who that is) can hold that hell is a physical place of fire and torture and still be in good standing. But just like holding to a 6 day creation and 6000 year old earth, there is nothing in Catholicism that says we have to believe that.
“Somehow, I still see this as being slightly vindictive. Basically, it would come down to this: by definition, God would be responsible for the intellectual capacities and such that even make it possible for us to quesiton His existence. Yet this same God would willingly condemn his children for using his gifts–that doesn’t seem very fatherly to me.”
Well, anyone not believing in God does not automatically send them to hell. I know this is another popular belief in the evangelical tradition that one has to mentally and physically accept Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour or will go to hell, even if they have never heard of Jesus. This is not the Catholic understanding. We believe that only those who knowingly and willingly reject God will go to hell. So for example, the intellectual atheist, the one who has read all the arguments, seriously considered the evidence, and who word worship a God if he was convinced one exists but has come to the conclusion that there is no God can’t be punished soeley for that. Just like what we talked about with mortal sin, God does not punish us for those things we don’t know. Now having said that, I can’t say a specific person like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens will be saved; I can’t judge what’s in their hearts. But the principal is that while we believe there is an objective truth and an objective way that God has designed in order for his creatures to worship him (the Catholic Church) we believe he is not bound by that and will not save someone who follows what they sincerely believe to be the truth, because Jesus is the Truth, and if one is following the truth as best they understand it, they are, in a sense following Jesus.
“Additionally, there’s that whole issue of conversion after death, which you mentioned briefly. In my experience, parents don’t give up on their children and don’t condemn them to the worst possible fate that exists, even if they are guilty of past mistakes. What kind of parent turns away from a child at the moment when that child says “I was wrong and I need you?””
Yes, indeed. Well, here the idea is that when we die, we are outside of time and hence our wills become fixed because a change (like a change from rejecting God to accepting him) requires time. Time measures change. Most Christians believe that humans are both a body soul integration. The body is the matter and the soul is the form of the person. The soul is what gives life and animates the matter; hence, all living things have a soul, yet only humans have a rational, immortal soul. But a soul is that who’s nature can never change. Anything we see on this earth can change nature. Like a tree in the woods does tree-like things, but if I cut it down and build a desk, it’s the same “stuff” but it has a different nature, a different essence. Even our bodies are like that. Our bodies have a different nature than the ashes that result after a cremation. Yet a soul never changes it’s nature. Since the soul goes on after death, but there is no more integration with the body so there’s no idea of time, the state of the soul is fixed and can never change. Hmmm, this actually raises the interesting question about how this works with the resurrection of the body that I talked about above… that I don’t know. I”ll see what I can find out.
“This raises an interesting question: are non-believers able to commit mortal sins? All of the conditions do not apply; hence, why are they considered to be capable of sin? Doesn’t one have to be a believer in order to do so?”
Yes, I think they can commit mortal sin. So the grave matter condition is grave matter. That’s no problem. Full consent can eaisliy happen with nonbelievers too. So the question is about full knowledge. Full knowledge asks whether or not the person is aware that what they are doing is wrong. Let’s take someone who commits rape, for example. Clearly this is grave matter. Unless the rapist is mentally unstable, he probably has full consent of the will; no one is forcing him to rape. So full knowledge just ask the question “does the rapist know that what he is doing is wrong?” I don’t think we need to appeal to God or religion to answer that question. Like we talked about a while ago, we both believe there are moral absolutes, and I think we would be hard pressed to find someone who believes rape to be okay. So i think as long as the rapist knows that what he is doing is wrong, it would be mortal, even though he wouldn’t call it a “mortal sin.”
So again, I apologize. I got really heavy into theology. Know that I know that I’m just telling you this so you know what I (as well as Catholics, I guess) believe, not that I’m expecting you to take this as gospel (pun intended) truth. Hehe, I”m funny. Alright, time to change someone’s diaper :) Later, Enigma.
Bobby,
“So again, I apologize. I got really heavy into theology. Know that I know that I’m just telling you this so you know what I (as well as Catholics, I guess) believe, not that I’m expecting you to take this as gospel (pun intended) truth.”
Don’t apologize–I did ask. And I must say, based on your answers, that the Catholic interpreation of God is, to me, preferable to the one that I grew up with.
“That is correct. There may be some sort of physical element like that because we believe in the resurrection of the body for both those who are saved and not saved, but the pain of hell is separation from God. Fire is used a lot to describe the kind of pain that will be suffered, but it does not mean a literal fire.”
So how does one determine what is literal and what is figurative? (Again, I’m not attacking, just curious.)
“In fact many of the saints describe the pains of purgatory (place where you go right before heaven to be cleansed) as fire, because it’s this burning, a longing to be finally united with God, which of course those souls in purgatory will eventually be. So fire and flames are used to describe even what saved people will feel. (see again, this is the problem when one reads the bible LITERALLY, as in “the words on the pages mean exactly what they say” and not looking at a larger context, but I digress.)”
In purgatory, this would make sense–a burning cleasening that would purify one enough to be with God. At risk of repeating myself, I don’t see any form of physical punishment/torture as being legitimate in hell.
“Well, anyone not believing in God does not automatically send them to hell.”
Would you believe that I have never heard a believer say this?
“We believe that only those who knowingly and willingly reject God will go to hell.”
While I do applaud this, what constitutes “knowingly” and “willingly?” Based on your next sentance, I gather that you aren’t refering to intellecutal questioning and such. Do you mean someone who is absolutely convinced of God’s prescence and yet still rejects him, perhaps out of spite or because Jesus’s teachings interfere with what he/she would like to do?
“But the principal is that while we believe there is an objective truth and an objective way that God has designed in order for his creatures to worship him (the Catholic Church) we believe he is not bound by that and will not save someone who follows what they sincerely believe to be the truth, because Jesus is the Truth, and if one is following the truth as best they understand it, they are, in a sense following Jesus.”
Would Jesus then be the only truth? What about a person who believes in the rightousness of actions that are directly antithetical to Jesus’s teachings?
“Yes, indeed. Well, here the idea is that when we die, we are outside of time and hence our wills become fixed because a change (like a change from rejecting God to accepting him) requires time. Time measures change. Most Christians believe that humans are both a body soul integration. The body is the matter and the soul is the form of the person. The soul is what gives life and animates the matter; hence, all living things have a soul, yet only humans have a rational, immortal soul. But a soul is that who’s nature can never change. Anything we see on this earth can change nature. Like a tree in the woods does tree-like things, but if I cut it down and build a desk, it’s the same “stuff” but it has a different nature, a different essence. Even our bodies are like that. Our bodies have a different nature than the ashes that result after a cremation. Yet a soul never changes it’s nature. Since the soul goes on after death, but there is no more integration with the body so there’s no idea of time, the state of the soul is fixed and can never change.”
Change does require time–but I would argue that it can occur even without a conventional understanding of time.
In heaven, life may be outside of conventional time yet, in my opionion, time, in some form or another would have to exist for saved souls unless, of course, they became like God, omniscent and present within every aspect of conventional time.
“Yes, I think they can commit mortal sin. So the grave matter condition is grave matter. That’s no problem. Full consent can eaisliy happen with nonbelievers too. So the question is about full knowledge. Full knowledge asks whether or not the person is aware that what they are doing is wrong. Let’s take someone who commits rape, for example. Clearly this is grave matter. Unless the rapist is mentally unstable, he probably has full consent of the will; no one is forcing him to rape. So full knowledge just ask the question “does the rapist know that what he is doing is wrong?” I don’t think we need to appeal to God or religion to answer that question. Like we talked about a while ago, we both believe there are moral absolutes, and I think we would be hard pressed to find someone who believes rape to be okay. So i think as long as the rapist knows that what he is doing is wrong, it would be mortal, even though he wouldn’t call it a “mortal sin.””
Your example equates two dissimlar things; rape is wrong because it violates the human rights of another individual as defined by law. (For sake of arguement, I’m sticking to legalistic views, thought I would argue that this is one of those objective rights and wrongs.) So, even a person did not think that rape itself was inherently wrong, they could know that they were committing a wrong according to the laws of society.
From my understanding, that does not hold for God and sin–some things are wrong and are sins simply because God says that they are. So how could a person who does not believe in God avoid these “mortal sins?”
I’ll use a (possibly flawed) example to illustrate. Based on earlier discussions, I understand that pre-marital sex (I hate that term: it implies that those who engage in it will marry someone at some point in there lives) is a grave matter because God says that it is wrong. Yet premarital sex is not a crime (in this country, anyway)–the only reason that it is a sin is because God says that it is. But if a person does not believe in and does not have an understanding of God, he/she will not have knowledge of the severity of the sin that he/she is commiting by engaging in premarital sex. So how can that individual by guilty of a mortal sin?
Just out of curiosity, what is your understanding of the terms sin and wrong? Is every wrong a sin and vice versa or do you base your understanding on something else?
Sorry for the long post and have a good day.
Hey Enigma,
“So how does one determine what is literal and what is figurative? (Again, I’m not attacking, just curious.)”
Excellent question, and this is one of those areas where I’m afraid that my Protestant brothers and sisters have a hard time giving a satisfying answer. For the Catholic, the bible is interpreted in light of what we call “Tradition.” While Catholics believe that the bible is the word of God, we also believe that Tradition is the word of God as well. Basically what we mean by Tradition are those beliefs which have been handed down from the apostles orally which the Church has always held. So for example, there is a lot of controversy about the meaning of baptism. What does it do, is it necessary, etc. And when you read the bible, the bible doesn’t come right flat out and say what it does. And to me, there are legitimate interpretations of what baptism is supposed to be based on the bible alone. So how do we know which is correct? Well, if you look at the writings of early Christians (1st, 2nd, 3rd century) EVERY SINGLE ONE without exception confirms the NECESSITY of baptism for salvation. And this is what the Catholic Church has always taught; that baptism “regenerates” and is not just symbolic.
So that’s how we know. Otherwise, you see how we can take up, what is it now, 1600 posts on a single blog entry? (I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but MK, Bethany, me, and others have been having a huge ongoing debate about Catholic vs. Protestant) But the thing is, what my faith is in is the teachings of the Catholic church, not how I see what the bible is trying to say, not my interpretation of it. (now to be fair, my Protestant friends could defend their position very well). So to sum up, it is based on how the Church has always understood things, more or less.
“In purgatory, this would make sense–a burning cleasening that would purify one enough to be with God. At risk of repeating myself, I don’t see any form of physical punishment/torture as being legitimate in hell.”
I don’t see it making much sense either (in hell). Now I”m not saying I FOR SURE don’t believe there is any; there may be (and I think Catholics are free to believe either way) but like you, I”m not sure how or why it would work that way.
“Would you believe that I have never heard a believer say this?”
And Enigma, this is not my opinion, or simply the way I see. This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. A professing Catholic MUST hold to that UNDER PAIN OF MORTAL SIN. Actually, what they must hold to is that there are ways, known to God alone, in which those outside of the visible confines of teh Catholic Church can be saved, which of course, includes atheists.
That being said, though, we only teach that it is POSSIBLE. We don’t know how many non Catholics are saved, or even if ANY are saved, just that the possibility is open. We believe that God instituted 7 sacraments, all of which can only be found in the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church, and that these sacraments are what confers grace which saves. So I want to be clear that we don’t preach universal salvation, but not being a member of the visible CC does not automatically cut you off.
“While I do applaud this, what constitutes “knowingly” and “willingly?” Based on your next sentance, I gather that you aren’t refering to intellecutal questioning and such. Do you mean someone who is absolutely convinced of God’s prescence and yet still rejects him, perhaps out of spite or because Jesus’s teachings interfere with what he/she would like to do?”
Right, well, we actually don’t know. The things you are saying (intellectual) seem quite plausible, but what we mean by that hasn’t really been defined and probably won’t be. So this idea of “knowingly” and “willingly”, only God knows what someone wills and knows in their hearts, so to try and come up with specific criteria would be pure speculation. But I think what you mentioned is the idea.
“Would Jesus then be the only truth? What about a person who believes in the rightousness of actions that are directly antithetical to Jesus’s teachings?”
Yes, Jesus is the only truth. So for that person, it is like we discussed above. If they really believe that what they are doing is good, if they’re not doing it out of a selfish, or prideful reason, then the possibility for there salvation is there. Just like if Jesus is the truth, then atheism is not the truth, but as we said above, salvation for an atheist is possible.
“Change does require time–but I would argue that it can occur even without a conventional understanding of time.
In heaven, life may be outside of conventional time yet, in my opionion, time, in some form or another would have to exist for saved souls unless, of course, they became like God, omniscent and present within every aspect of conventional time.”
There is this weird understandin of how time works for the soul, which is called “quasi-time” (???) maybe… Some term like that. Anyway, the idea is that time is discontinuous for any soul that is not God. It’s pretty crazy, but the point is that theologians distinguish between God being totally outside of time and souls being in a quasi-time. Now that being said, the idea is that in this quasi-time, one can only undergo ACCIDENTAL changes, and not SUBSTANTIAL changes, which is what would be required to change your mind from against to for God. (substantial and accidental being used in the metaphysical sense; I think you know what they mean, right?) So that is also the reason why a good person’s will is always fixed on God after they die; that they can never choose hell.
“Your example equates two dissimlar things; rape is wrong because it violates the human rights of another individual as defined by law. (For sake of arguement, I’m sticking to legalistic views, thought I would argue that this is one of those objective rights and wrongs.) So, even a person did not think that rape itself was inherently wrong, they could know that they were committing a wrong according to the laws of society.
From my understanding, that does not hold for God and sin–some things are wrong and are sins simply because God says that they are. So how could a person who does not believe in God avoid these “mortal sins?””
Ah, okay. I think I see what you’re saying, and I think this will answer it. The question of right and wrong vs. God’s sovereignty can be tricky if one (a believer I mean, not you) isn’t careful. So a nonbeliever could ask teh question “are morals arbitray laws by God? For example, could God say that murder is okay? If he can’t then morals are higher than God, and God is bound by morals, so God isn’t all powerful.” Something like that. So it seems that either God isn’t all powerful, or his morals are arbitrary and one would have to conclude that God could have created a universe in which rape was morally acceptable. Here is how a believer should answer that. God is just. That is part of his nature. So murder, for example, is a violation of justice against the innocent person, and hence, a violation of God’s nature. So the reason certain acts are inherently evil is not because God “said so” and not because they are above God, but because it is part of the very nature of God. So an evil act offends WHO God is, not because he said so, but because of WHAT he is.
That’s a little convoluted. It’s worth maybe thinking about a bit. It’s somehwat similar to the fact that humans can’t fly. Can we not fly because we declare that we don’t want to? Well, no, it’s just not in our nature to fly (unassisted, i mean) Does that mean that the idea of flying is somehow greater than us, and is a law above us? Well, not really. It’s just not in our nature. This isn’t a perfect analogy, and it breaks down, but hopefully it gets us thinking in teh right direction.
Arg, so how does all this mumbo jumbo relate to your question? Well, I think I can answer it better after what you say below.
“I’ll use a (possibly flawed) example to illustrate. Based on earlier discussions, I understand that pre-marital sex (I hate that term: it implies that those who engage in it will marry someone at some point in there lives) is a grave matter because God says that it is wrong. Yet premarital sex is not a crime (in this country, anyway)–the only reason that it is a sin is because God says that it is. But if a person does not believe in and does not have an understanding of God, he/she will not have knowledge of the severity of the sin that he/she is commiting by engaging in premarital sex. So how can that individual by guilty of a mortal sin?”
So hopefully at this point, you see that I would argue that “pre-marital” sex (agreed, bad term) is a violation of God’s nature, just like murder. Now, I’m not saying they are both just as bad. But what I would argue is that teh prohibition against pre-marital sex is not arbitrary, yet an affront to the nature of God. I won’t get too much into arguing that now, but part of the reason I would say that is because marriage is reflected in God’s being as a Trinity, and that engaging in the sexual act is to share in the life of the Trinity. But that gets into a whole other area.
I think I can answer your question better, though. So you hit on a good point. I illustrated how one can still commit a mortal sin without being religious. And you actually gave a good example of how someone can commit [what we consider] grave matter, yet NOT be a mortal sin. Because pre-marital sex is not against the law and because (I think) there is so much confusion about sexuality in our culture, and because almost everyone is doing it and most people don’t say it’s wrong, chances are that many people who engage in pre-marital sex have no clue that it may be wrong. So I think you built a good case for how people can do what we consider to be grave matter, yet not be a mortal sin. Does that makes sense?
“Just out of curiosity, what is your understanding of the terms sin and wrong? Is every wrong a sin and vice versa or do you base your understanding on something else?”
Ah yes, I sometimes use them interchangibly, and am a bit sloppy. Sin is any affront to God, any violation of his justice. Now all sin is wrong, but not all wrong is sin. So if I write 2+2=8, that is wrong, but certainly not a sin. Usually when I”m talking about morals with a nonbeliever, though, I try and stick to the term “wrong” when what i really mean is “sin” just because I don’t want to be theological with them. Like we have discussed before, I think one can discuss morals without having to discuss God, although I do believe that’s where they come from.
“Sorry for the long post and have a good day.”
Again, my friend, I’m afraid I beat you with length. Ask me about theology, and I’ll just ramble on for hours. Have a great weekend!