Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle!

[DeletedAcc. 32]

I would imagine it's the same as most people's, a binding union between two people that love one another.

Well, I mean do you think that gay marriage is wrong?

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Well, I mean do you think that gay marriage is wrong?

 

I think the Church still doesn't consider it "marriage" and that is within their right whether to or not to bless a union, but I see no reason why it should be considered wrong. It's only "wrong" if it's abusive but that's the same as with a straight couple.

[Sunwalker 981]

In other words, the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, it's a person; at least in terms of potentiality (which philosophically should be enough to substantiate that person's rights and importance as a living thing of the human kind). Though it's a whole other kettle of fish, the matter of Christian sexual ethics: are contraceptives against God's design? Is it actually sinful for a Christian male or female to use dams, condoms or other methods of pregnancy prevention? Be the reasons whatever they may, this unfortunately is a cause of some difference between Catholics and Protestants, if I recall correctly.

About the Catholic side of things, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the position on §2366 to §2372.

 

I would like to paste here an answer, about the same subject, that I gave on a different thread another day:

 

The contraceptive part of Catholic sexuality is one that took me a while to comprehend, and I do understand the confusions that might arise since it is not trivial. However, basically everything comes to that the sexual act must not be closed to life. This does not mean that every time that people have sex they must get pregnant, it is just that conception though the sexual act has to be a possibility. Contraceptives and sterilization close sex to life, so that's why they are not accepted.

 

However, nothing of this means that it is OK to go out there having sex with as many people as possible without contraceptives. If one is willing to follow Catholic morality, them he should follows it in its entirety, as in Catholicism sex is reserved for married man and woman. Of course the Church isn't saying to people to have sex irresponsibly, it is just the other way around. Fornication is wrong either way, but fornicating with contraceptives is not as harmful as without. Nothing of this means it is right, though. The ideal way for the Church is still sex inside marriage.

 

It is perfectly OK to decide when to have kids and how many, what is not OK is to control it through contraceptives methods and - God forbid - abortion. Fidelity and chastity should be the methods to prevent sexually transmissible diseases and pregnancy. Avoiding to have sex in fertile periods, like with the Billings Method, is what that the Church accepts.

 

There is one more thing to the equation: free sex more often than not leads to promiscuity. This is also a reason for not accepting contraceptives, as it eliminates any sense of responsibility and compromise, and leads to objectification of the other person. In other words, the mutual love part is removed from sex in the name of a selfish pleasure. This also might lead people to become irresponsible and vulgar with their sexuality.

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

 

 

but in this case we can also just assume that someone is alive to be on the safe side.

I think that we agree about playing it safe on the spiritual side of things. The reason I brought the law into it is not because the law defines what is morally right, but because the law should follow what is morally right when we can demonstrate it without relying on our own theological beliefs (a bit tricky, given how we believe that all good comes from God, but the universal declaration of human rights has proved so useful in this regard.)  

 

 

 

It is arbitrary to establish that life starts when the brain is developed.

 

I disagree. Given that the law quite rightly attempts to protect the lives of people, establishing when life starts is not arbitrary but critical. If one disregards any theological axioms, the brain is what makes a person a person. One can sustain any component of the body as components of a biological machine (just look at organ transplants, blood donation and so on) but the brain is demonstrably the thinking bit that one could argue makes a person. 

 

---

 

 

 

the sexual act must not be closed to life

 

Can you justify this theologically? Especially since you have stated:

 

 

 

So I see no moral issues if they are destroyed before fertilization.

 

---

 

 

 

There is one more thing to the equation: free sex more often than not leads to promiscuity.

 

I don't think it does - certainly not 'more often than not' which indicates a greater than 50% promiscuity rate (that is, of partners that have 'free sex' by which I understand engage in sex with each other freely and willingly as often as is mutually desired. Promiscuity being defined as having sex with other persons over a continuous time period in which they were with their partner. No, I do not define divorce and remarriage as promiscuous behavior.)

 

 

 

I see that you stated the Catholic Church's position on contraception, which I do not entirely agree with but appreciate and respect as Christian theological positions that have been given much thought and prayer. It is for completeness and comparison I shall post the Church of England's position on contraception, which is the view I hold.

[Nameless Knight 1,001]

Hello, I'm Andrew and I am a christian. I want to help the world realize that Religion and Science, Christianity and other Religions, and Believers and Non-Believers can live together and tolerate each other.

 

(Don't ask why I introduced myself like as if I was at an AA meeting)

[LittleMac 3,085]

Hello, I'm Andrew and I am a christian. I want to help the world realize that Religion and Science, Christianity and other Religions, and Believers and Non-Believers can live together and tolerate each other.

 

(Don't ask why I introduced myself like as if I was at an AA meeting)

Hi Andrew, nice to meet you

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Hello, I'm Andrew and I am a christian. I want to help the world realize that Religion and Science, Christianity and other Religions, and Believers and Non-Believers can live together and tolerate each other.

 

(Don't ask why I introduced myself like as if I was at an AA meeting)

 

I share this exact mission actually. It saddens me when I see such hatred toward religion, and by "religion" they of course mean "Christianity and NOTHING else!" Not that intolerance from the religious doesn't still happen, I know it does and I wish I could witness it for the sole purpose of stopping it whilst still proudly wearing my cross, I've just seen and been accosted by more anti-theists than I have seen the opposite.

 

Yet strangely it never seems to work, or rarely does. It's like my opponents are stuck in a "your way or my way" mode and they can't accept even the concept of harmonious co-existence. That I don't wish to change them only that they cease their hostility.

 

Any theories as to why this is everypony?

Edited October 24, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Nameless Knight 1,001]

I share this exact mission actually. It saddens me when I see such hatred toward religion, and by "religion" they of course mean "Christianity and NOTHING else!" Not that intolerance from the religious doesn't still happen, I know it does and I wish I could witness it for the sole purpose of stopping it whilst still proudly wearing my cross, I've just seen and been accosted by more anti-theists than I have seen the opposite.

 

Yet strangely it never seems to work, or rarely does. It's like my opponents are stuck in a "your way or my way" mode and they can't accept even the concept of harmonious co-existence. That I don't wish to change them only that they cease their hostility.

 

Any theories as to why this is everypony?

 

Many on both sides don't want peace like we do. Truth is, this is the 2nd age of Zealotry, even with Anti-Theists. This is the biggest time Beliefs have clashed since the crusades, and neither side is trying to make peace with the other.

 

Jews and Muslims are having a better time at making peace then Christians and Atheists.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Many on both sides don't want peace like we do. Truth is, this is the 2nd age of Zealotry, even with Anti-Theists. This is the biggest time Beliefs have clashed since the crusades, and neither side is trying to make peace with the other.

 

Jews and Muslims are having a better time at making peace then Christians and Atheists.

 

You don't think that Crusades thing is just more than a little hyperbolic? First world believers and non-believers aren't killing each other over their difference in belief. I hardly think internet forum debates compare to real life violence.

[Nameless Knight 1,001]

You don't think that Crusades thing is just more than a little hyperbolic? First world believers and non-believers aren't killing each other over their difference in belief. I hardly think internet forum debates compare to real life violence.

it is still much smaller than the crusades since we aren't killing each other, but compared to religious conflict between the end of the crusades and now, this is an age of zealotry. really shows how small the conflict between atheism and Christianity is in comparison huh?

Edited October 24, 2015 by Plague Doctor

[HereComesTom 2,267]

it is still much smaller than the crusades since we aren't killing each other, but compared to religious conflict between the end of the crusades and now, this is an age of zealotry. really shows how small the conflict between atheism and Christianity is in comparison huh?

 

I dunno about that.  Sorry to butt in, but aren't you forgetting the Cold War?  The USSR was atheist by force, and while America was theoretically a secular nation throughout the 20th century where anyone could (and did) practice any religion they chose, I still think that in practice, America was Christian.  For example, the way they treated Japan after conquering it after WW2 struck me as the way Christian nation ought to treat a conquered people.  (Well, overall, with some admitted exceptions...)

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I dunno about that.  Sorry to butt in, but aren't you forgetting the Cold War?  The USSR was atheist by force, and while America was theoretically a secular nation throughout the 20th century where anyone could (and did) practice any religion they chose, I still think that in practice, America was Christian.  For example, the way they treated Japan after conquering it after WW2 struck me as the way Christian nation ought to treat a conquered people.  (Well, overall, with some admitted exceptions...)

 

Well the Cold War was still not a religious war, an ideological one certainly, but said ideology was not only about spirituality. It tied into individualism, responsibility, economics, and the paradigm of civilization after the fall of empires and regimes in a post WWI and II world.

it is still much smaller than the crusades since we aren't killing each other, but compared to religious conflict between the end of the crusades and now, this is an age of zealotry. really shows how small the conflict between atheism and Christianity is in comparison huh?

 

Wait, you seem to be agreeing with me now that it is NOT as severe. I'm confused.

[Nameless Knight 1,001]

Well the Cold War was still not a religious war, an ideological one certainly, but said ideology was not only about spirituality. It tied into individualism, responsibility, economics, and the paradigm of civilization after the fall of empires and regimes in a post WWI and II world.

 

Wait, you seem to be agreeing with me now that it is NOT as severe. I'm confused.

How do I explain this... hmmm

 

Even though you are correct that it is not as severe as the Crusades, it is still severe enough that people are not just going to give up to peace so easily. They want to win a battle that cannot be won. That is why no matter where you go people on both sides are refusing to accept being co-existent.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

How do I explain this... hmmm

 

Even though you are correct that it is not as severe as the Crusades, it is still severe enough that people are not just going to give up to peace so easily. They want to win a battle that cannot be won. That is why no matter where you go people on both sides are refusing to accept being co-existent.

 

I disagree, I was only speaking to my experience and my question was more why a single person on either side would not accept peace. Today we have the internet, there has not been such a singularly democratizing tool in human history since the invention of the printing press. People can communicate freely across the entire globe now, communication is one of the biggest steps to co-existence.

 

That isn't to say I disagree, entirely. Just that, were I to compare today to some historical event, it would be the Crusades in severity LAST.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Steel Accord

[alpinefroggy 451]

I dunno about that.  Sorry to butt in, but aren't you forgetting the Cold War?  The USSR was atheist by force, and while America was theoretically a secular nation throughout the 20th century where anyone could (and did) practice any religion they chose, I still think that in practice, America was Christian.  For example, the way they treated Japan after conquering it after WW2 struck me as the way Christian nation ought to treat a conquered people.  (Well, overall, with some admitted exceptions...)

 

The problem here is that the soviet union wasn't doing things in the name of atheism.  The other problem is that Christianity has also commited atrocities.  Atheism, crhistianity all have good and bad in them it doesn't do justice to point out one bad point of one side and one good point of another and say that its good enough

[HereComesTom 2,267]

The problem here is that the soviet union wasn't doing things in the name of atheism.  The other problem is that Christianity has also commited atrocities.  Atheism, crhistianity all have good and bad in them it doesn't do justice to point out one bad point of one side and one good point of another and say that its good enough

 

All that is true.  But my intent with posting about the Cold War wasn't really to point out a good-and-bad dichotomy, so much as to point out the existence of a pretty strong Atheism-versus-Christianty conflict in the last century.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

The problem here is that the soviet union wasn't doing things in the name of atheism.  The other problem is that Christianity has also commited atrocities.  Atheism, crhistianity all have good and bad in them it doesn't do justice to point out one bad point of one side and one good point of another and say that its good enough

 

Just to keep things on topic, which of those camps would you identify as, if either?

All that is true.  But my intent with posting about the Cold War wasn't really to point out a good-and-bad dichotomy, so much as to point out the existence of a pretty strong Atheism-versus-Christianty conflict in the last century.

 

See above to my actual point on that.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Steel Accord

[alpinefroggy 451]

Just to keep things on topic, which of those camps would you identify as, if either?

 

 

I am not affiliated with a religion.  The existence of a god I dont care enough about to say a no or a yes.  I guess you could call me an agnostic humanist.  So when it comes to theism vs atheism I typically side atheist

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I am not affiliated with a religion.  The existence of a god I dont care enough about to say a no or a yes.  I guess you could call me an agnostic humanist.  So when it comes to theism vs atheism I typically side atheist

 

Then why did you post here? Not that you aren't welcome it just strikes me as odd.

[alpinefroggy 451]

Then why did you post here? Not that you aren't welcome it just strikes me as odd.

I just wanted to point something out. I will leave this thread alone from now on if you wish I just think level headed discussion from time to time from someone from a different viewpoint is good. I am personally not the kind of person that wants to disrepect someone's beliefs though. I respect you being a Christian and your beliefs even if I don't wish to partake in them.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I just wanted to point something out. I will leave this thread alone from now on if you wish I just think level headed discussion from time to time from someone from a different viewpoint is good. I am personally not the kind of person that wants to disrepect someone's beliefs though. I respect you being a Christian and your beliefs even if I don't wish to partake in them.

 

I get it and I appreciate your respect. Let it be known I respect your way of thinking as well. Like Plague and I were saying, all we both want is harmony.

[Sunwalker 981]

I think that we agree about playing it safe on the spiritual side of things. The reason I brought the law into it is not

because the law defines what is morally right, but because the law should follow what is morally right when we can

demonstrate it without relying on our own theological beliefs (a bit tricky, given how we believe that all good comes from

God, but the universal declaration of human rights has proved so useful in this regard.)

The principles of the declaration of human rights are very Christian on themselves, and if I am not mistaken some of the people who drafted it were also religious. God is more than just good, God is the goodness itself. Everything that is good comes in some form or another from himself.

 

It is illusory to think that people can accomplish anything without God. The western civilization itself was built by Christianity after the fall of the Roman Empire. However, our current culture tries to hide all the positive Christian influence, and attribute everything to purely human effort. That’s historical revisionism at its finest, to not mention political correctness. I don’t mean to be rude here, it’s just a friendly warning from a fellow Christian to another one: you seem to be buying into the world’s lie that it is impolite to bring God in public.

 

Whenever God is taken out of the equation, it is just a matter of time before things go downhill, morals will slowly degrade over time. I know that there are abuses committed by religious people, but even them they are not nearly as bad as those that come from atheistic regimes. If you pay attention, you are going to see that it is on countries with a Christian upbringing where you are going to find a bigger respect for individual freedom and other human rights.

 

 

I disagree. Given that the law quite rightly attempts to protect the lives of people, establishing when life starts is not arbitrary but critical. If one disregards any theological axioms, the brain is what makes a person a person. One can sustain any component of the body as components of a biological machine (just look at organ transplants, blood donation and so on) but the brain is demonstrably the thinking bit that one could argue makes a person.

The difference here is that the embryo can develop itself further even without a brain at first, while the same cannot be said about an adult person who got his brain destroyed. This potential of further developing itself is what I define as being alive, and the embryo has it. And he is going to develop a brain, unless some external factor interrupt the development.

 

Can you justify this theologically?

First, I would like to point out that until around the 1930’s all the Protestant denomination held the same position as the Catholic Church. At this time, thanks to social pressure, the Anglican Church was swayed by public pressure and in its Lambeth Conference said that contraception was allowed in some cases, but soon enough it made them completely allowed. Other Protestant churches followed suit after that. What I am saying with this is that the position held by the Catholic Church is the traditional Christian position that was held since the beginning of Christianity.

 

The problem with contraception is that it violates one of the purposes for which God created sex: procreation. This is in the natural law that God imprinted on people’s hearths. The pleasure that comes from the sexual act is an additional blessing, intended to strengthening the bond between man and woman, with intimacy, love and respect; thus creating a stable environment for the new life. The sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural when the basic purpose of procreation is excluded.

 

One more thing. When I was rereading what I said before, “So I see no moral issues if they are destroyed before fertilization”, I came to the conclusion that I have worded myself very poorly. What I wanted to say was that if the egg or the sperm were destroyed, that didn’t count as a murder. However, my sentence came completely wrong, I don’t remember what I was thinking when I wrote that, so I retract that sentence. To be clear, I still defend that using contraceptives to prevent the sperm to fertilize the egg is still wrong, those “murdering” is not what is wrong here.

 

I don't think it does - certainly not 'more often than not' which indicates a greater than 50% promiscuity rate (that is, of partners that have 'free sex' by which I understand engage in sex with each other freely and willingly as often as is mutually desired. Promiscuity being defined as having sex with other persons over a continuous time period in which they were with their partner. No, I do not define divorce and remarriage as promiscuous behavior.)

The matter here is losing the sense of how serious a sinful behavior can be. When some wrongdoing is made for an extended period of time, people start thinking that it is normal and that there is nothing wrong with it. This is the problem with the “modern” world’s sexual morals, a lot of behaviors that were unacceptable not too long ago are accepted today. The problem here is that they don’t stop being harmful just because of that.

 

Children need a stable and loving environment to grow, with both a father and a mother. Loose sexual morals weaken family bonds, and the result is more divorces and “remarriages”. With this the education and love that children needs is severely impaired, resulting in all kinds of emotional and behavioral problems. Sexual morals are strict because parenting is something that requires a great responsibility.

 

 

I see that you stated the Catholic Church's position on contraception, which I do not entirely agree with but appreciate and respect as Christian theological positions that have been given much thought and prayer. It is for completeness and comparison I shall post the Church of England's position on contraception, which is the view I hold.

Thanks! I also appreciate it

 

---

 

 

Hello, I'm Andrew and I am a christian. I want to help the world realize that Religion and Science, Christianity and other Religions, and Believers and Non-Believers can live together and tolerate each other.

 

(Don't ask why I introduced myself like as if I was at an AA meeting)

Welcome

 

That's my position too! On the top of that, I also work in the scientific area, I am a chemist. I am currently pursuing my doctorate.

 

I don't know the religious instance of most of my colleagues, but anyways, we get along well and I never met any religious intolerance from them. There are around a dozen people in my research group. There are two of them that I know for sure who are atheists (one of them is also Buddhist), there is also one other Christian (Mennonite, I think), a Muslim, I am Christian (Catholic), and my supervisor is Spiritualist; the rest I don't know. My supervisor even recommended me to pray and think about God when I explained him that I was starting to get depression , and it has been working .

 

---

 

Any theories as to why this is everypony?

I think that there are something from the spiritual world at play here. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

 

I have been noticing that their pet peeve for religion comes pretty much out of the blue, while they are perfectly capable of discussing other subjects in a calm and respectful manner. The devils of the Hell get terribly upset at the simple mention of anything that has to do with God, so I imagine that they must be at play here.

 

---

 

I just wanted to point something out. I will leave this thread alone from now on if you wish I just think level headed discussion from time to time from someone from a different viewpoint is good. I am personally not the kind of person that wants to disrepect someone's beliefs though. I respect you being a Christian and your beliefs even if I don't wish to partake in them.

That's perfectly fine for you to comment here, and I even encourage you to do it more, if you want.

 

I do think that it is healthy to have a balanced and respectful discussion. Having many different sides helps everyone to organize their ideas and articulate themselves better. Plus understanding how other views work and where they come from helps with being loving and tolerant.

 

From reading older posts of this thread I have seen occasions in which non-Christians joined the discussion, and everything went well!

Edited October 25, 2015 by Sunwalker

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

It is illusory to think that people can accomplish anything without God. The western civilization itself was built by Christianity after the fall of the Roman Empire. However, our current culture tries to hide all the positive Christian influence, and attribute everything to purely human effort.

 

Call it semantics if you wish, but isn't human effort God's work in a way? We are His instruments, His hands in the world as it physically exists. If God's love comes through us when we extend love to each other, is it that much of a stretch to say when humans do a great work they are doing God's work? 

 

 

I think that there are something from the spiritual world at play here. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." I have been noticing that their pet peeve for religion comes pretty much out of the blue, while they are perfectly capable of discussing other subjects in a calm and respectful manner. The devils of Hell get terribly upset at the simple mention of anything that has to do with God, so I imagine that they must be at play here.

 

Really? I never suspected as such but I have to admit that makes sense. Discussing politics and economics? Perfectly cordial. One mentions God or any religious practice? Complete and total hostility. Again, not a universal as there are just as many like Alpine who are very even tempered but it is strangely prevalent nevertheless.

 

I don't want to think that the Devil is working directly through some atheists because that makes me sound prejudice, but is that by itself wrong? Am I merely refusing to accept that possibility simply because it makes me personally uncomfortable? If that were the case, it's certainly an insidious one.

 

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

The principles of the declaration of human rights are very Christian on themselves,

 

 

Indeed. But since many non-Christians consider them axiomatic, when we have to decide on the laws for countries which have a wide variety of religions it is very handy that we can base arguments on them rather than relying on arguments from our particular faith (which people who do not share our faith will not consider valid arguments.) That the DoHR was hugely influenced by Christian values and culture means that we can accept it as an appropriate basis for morally acceptable laws.

 

 

God is more than just good, God is the goodness itself. Everything that is good comes in some form or another from himself. It is illusory to think that people can accomplish anything without God.

 

 

Quite. Given that God loves and tries to help even those that reject him, I do not reject the possibility that an action taken by a non-Christians can be directed by God to do good even as they deny his love and even his existence.

 

 

I don't want to think that the Devil is working directly through some atheists because that makes me sound prejudice, but is that by itself wrong? Am I merely refusing to accept that possibility simply because it makes me personally uncomfortable? If that were the case, it's certainly an insidious one.

 

 

I'd look at it this way: giving in to temptation and going against God's will serves the Devil's purpose, and can be done by Christians and non-Christians alike. All Christians commit sins and turn away from God's will at times, that the bible makes abundantly clear, and so it is hardly prejudiced to believe that non-Christians do as well. The exact cause is something I am a little less clear on - the bible makes reference to both human will and the actions of the Devil causing people to sin (or indeed both - with the Devil playing on our pride / arrogance / desire / other), and I cannot see how to distinguish between the two (or even if there is a difference) and so I don't usually bother - what matters is that such temptations are resisted to the best of our abilities. Obviously if someone has more to add on this then I would be interested to hear it.

[Sunwalker 981]

Call it semantics if you wish, but isn't human effort God's work in a way? We are His instruments, His hands in the world as it physically exists. If God's love comes through us when we extend love to each other, is it that much of a stretch to say when humans do a great work they are doing God's work? 

 

Quite. Given that God loves and tries to help even those that reject him, I do not reject the possibility that an action taken by a non-Christians can be directed by God to do good even as they deny his love and even his existence.  

 

I am not sure what was your disagreement here, @Steel Accord, since I agree what you said. Maybe I just wasn't clear enough before. Yes, I do think that God's providence can guide history through people. People have God's law imprinted on their hearts, both believers and not, and when they follow their conscience they are glorifying God too. In other words, one does not need to be explicitly Christian, or religious in general, in order to do God's work.

 

 

I don't want to think that the Devil is working directly through some atheists because that makes me sound prejudice, but is that by itself wrong? Am I merely refusing to accept that possibility simply because it makes me personally uncomfortable? If that were the case, it's certainly an insidious one.

 

Not directly, like in a possession, but maybe more subtly. The Devil has to power at all over people, especially over their will, unless they give this power to him somehow. In other words, the Devil cannot enter one's home, but he can knock the door and people be foolish enough to open it.

 

I also do not have sure of how much of this is an evil influence, if any at all, but it does seem to follow a pattern that is pretty close when dealing with demons: they freak out at the presence or simply mention of holy stuff. I am not saying it is a direct control of one's will, like possessions (those do exist, but real ones and incredibly rare), it can be something more subtle as a temptation. But at any rate, the individual's will has to consent the temptation, so he is still has a fault because he choose to listen to it and do it. The Enemy has no power to force people doing stuff, they have to freely choose doing it.

 

@Once In A Blue Moon also explained it :

I'd look at it this way: giving in to temptation and going against God's will serves the Devil's purpose, and can be done by Christians and non-Christians alike. All Christians commit sins and turn away from God's will at times, that the bible makes abundantly clear, and so it is hardly prejudiced to believe that non-Christians do as well. The exact cause is something I am a little less clear on - the bible makes reference to both human will and the actions of the Devil causing people to sin (or indeed both - with the Devil playing on our pride / arrogance / desire / other), and I cannot see how to distinguish between the two (or even if there is a difference) and so I don't usually bother - what matters is that such temptations are resisted to the best of our abilities. Obviously if someone has more to add on this then I would be interested to hear it.