Lust, marriage and wedding rings?

Man, dont you read.....

1 John 2:16
For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.

Get some glasses, dude. I have respect for the opposite sex and I am enough of a man to respect a girl for who she is and not what she looks like. Stop thinking with you dick and start thinking with your head.

 

one could contest that the world is from the Father, since the Father is the origin of everythign...

 

Nah, it comes from God. You just don't get it if you think anything is not from God.

They cost money. I don't have money because I don't have a job and my girlfriend can't afford to by me glasses and still give me money to go to the bars with.

Yeah. My girlfriend got chubby (although I wouldn't say it in public in front of her because she would get mad...) but she is still really sweet. The bonus is she is really soft and squishy, so I hug her and squish my face into her belly. Of course, I still have sex with her out of love, cuz I love her so much I get a hardon despite the fact that she isn't super physically attractive anymore.

My dick doesn't think. I don't think it thinks at least. Maybe you know something I don't. Does your dick think?

 

Do we have another Francisco on our hands?

 

And I was born in Berkeley, right near San Francisco. How terrible...

 

Yes, but Jesus told us to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. This priciple is compltely non-cultural and non-contextual and still applies today. I personally try to treat other people the way I would want to be treated myself, and if I were married I wouldn't want other people lusting over me or my wife. I can't explain why but I wouldn't and I know there are others who feel the same. Therefore if I lusted over married women I would be a hypocrite.

Yes, but I'm not a member of any religion. I follow the words of Christ as written in The Bible.

Hang on, we don't follow 4th century teachings! The first English Bible wasn't made publicly available until 1539. Before then it was just interpreted for us by the "corrupt" authorities. The Bibles we use today are modern and accurate translations which are taken directly from the original texts in Hebrew, Greek etc, most of which originate back to the actual time of the events. They have not been re-written by modern people.

Of course not. As I understand it, some of the Catholics practice celibacy, but — with the greatest of respect to any Catholics reading this — a lot of their religion is just made up, and based on the old teachings of the corrupt authorities. Jesus never told anyone to "rule" over the church, or to be celibate. That would destroy the human race!

That's interesting. I'll have to look into that.
As we know, Jesus said: "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart". But if 'lustfully' was to mean 'with the desire to steal her from her husband' then that would change the meaning a little.

Although it still wouldn't change the thoughts I have about women.

Either you believe Jesus was the son of God or you don't. If you do, then he would speak the will of God, and that wouldn't be culturally contextual since the vast majority of people who hear the word would not live in that culture.

Well, allegedly the author is God (working through human authors). And when Jesus is directly quoted, it's not a matter of the author trying to put a point across, it's the word of God.

Interesting. Could you describe these people and tell me what mistake you think they're making. I mean, what is fundamentally lacking from their faith? I would like to avoid falling into this trap, and to avoid taking advice from people like this.

MASTURBATION? Now I've heard everything. Honestly, I've never heard anyone (Christian or other) suggest that masturbation is a sin! That's funny! Surely there's no part of The Bible that suggests that? God wants the best for us, and if a man didn't masturbate it would be extremely unhealthy, wouldn't it? Where would all the semen go?

Are you saying there are Christians who don't masturbate!?!?!

Yes, I will do. Thanks, that was interesting!

 

O wow. This is a mess. LOL.

Jesus told us not to lust when we look at other people, because it reduces whomever you are looking at to an object merely for satiating some sort of desire. Whether the lady (or man for that matter!) is the most beautiful thing you've ever seen or not, she (or he!) is still a person that is much too special to be reduced to a mere object. At least that's how I think the L-rd sees it.

After all, to be intimate should mean that there's an intimate relationship going on... Meaning you know almost all there is to know about a person. That's what it means to know someone intimately. This is pretty funny, but my ethics professor said it like this... "Intimacy should mean he's 'into me, see?'" LOL.

As for none of us being here without lust, it's really not supposed to be like that. I mean, I'm a love child myself, a result of a tryst that shouldn't have happened, and I've suffered for it. A child is supposed to be the result of a covenant made in blood (that's the significance of the exchange of fluids), to honor the other member of the marriage and satisfy G-d's desire for us to be fruitful and multiply.

Because sex isn't bad. Just look at the Song of Solomon! Racy stuff!!! It's sex outside of the proper relationship that is considered wrong.

 

On the golden rule point, I completely agree! I'll repeat what I said about the word 'lust' meaning the desire to covet something/someone that belongs to another and to wish that that individual was left without the individual/item in question. Again let me refer you to:http://www.libchrist.com/bible/lust.html Pay specific attention to the entry under the Gospel of Matthew. You may find it enlightening!

On your first point, I understand! The sad fact of the matter is that during the council of Nicea, when it was decided what church doctrine would and would not include, there were efforts to alter and misrepresent Christianity to fit someone's political agenda. As far as your claim that the first english Bible wasn't written until 1539 and was an accurate translation of the Hebrew and Greek, again I must question that accuracy. The reasons being that church and state were closely aligned, anything that might threaten the state of the hierarchy might have been seen as a threat to its continuance, the Catholic church was still quite powerful, and who's to say that the translations haven't been altered earlier-maybe much earlier-by someone with an agenda. Let's also not forget that during the Council of Nicea, there were successful efforts to rid the bible of books with spiritual integrity that were an anathema to the Roman Empire at that time.

Well, I am a lapsed Catholic myself and question much of what I was taught growing up. As you'll recall, though, this practice was the rule in both the clergy and the monastaries.

Again, refer to the link above which I'll re-insert here. You have to understand what the situation was when Jesus was giving the "Sermon On The Mount".

I'm not so sure I understand your rebuttal, but I'll try to answer as best I can. Monogamy was not a teaching of traditional Judeo-Christianity as much as it was a Roman institution. As far as Jesus's divinity, this was also doctrine that was put in place by the council of Nicea and was decided upon by a divided vote. The Holy Spirit was added fifty years later thus completing the trinitarian model. Because of the way that this model was created, I question its authenticity.

My definition of a fundamentalist is one who interprets the bible literally or rhetorically often times without taking into account the elements (i.e culture that existed at the time, meaning of the language, customs, etc.) that influenced the writer to write what he did. In the United States, what I'll call medievangelism is quite rampant. Among some of the worst types of these preachers would include those who are always asking for money. Examples include: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, Oral Roberts and the list goes on. 'Religious' formatted radio stations which broadcst programs and preachers like this are common in the US-especially in the south and especially on the AM (MW) radio band. If you're intersted in looking for groups who are perhaps liberal Christrians but are doctrinally sound, you'll have a difficult time trying to find such a group. I'll direct you to the following websites:
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/uc/wuf.html
http://www.christian-universalism.com/
http://www.americanunitarian.org/
FTR, some of these sites may not share the views that I have with regard to sexuality, but they shed, IMO, some light on trying to promote spiritual integtrity.

Passages in Leviticus 15:16-18 and the "sin of Onan" in Genesis 38:8-10 have been quoted as justifying prohibition of masturbation.

I hope this all helps, good luck!

You're welcome!

 

Thanks, thespeez, that's great info!

Ha ha! That's funny. I've just read those passages and as far as I can see they don't rohibit masturbation at all. The Genesis passage has no 'rules' or 'laws — it's just a story about one particular family. God killed Onan because he didn't want the woman to have his children. He was being defiant and petty so he let his semen spill on the floor after intercourse. That has nothing to do with masturbation.

As for the Leviticus passage, again, it doesn't even mention masturbation. It just goes on and on about how semen is "unclean", saying that anything semen has touched is unclean, and details the rituals/sacrifices necessary to put this right. But these rules were given to the people of Israel in Old Testament times. Christians don't follow these rules about what is clean and unclean. There are no Christians who refuse to eat pork because it's unlean, or touch a woman who is on her period because she's unclean.

This passage says that anything that has touched semen is unclean, and then when a man and woman have sex they are unclean, and must bathe that same evening. Since we know God doesn't mind people having sex, we can infer that 'uncleanliness' isn't something we can avoid. So that doesn't make masturbation something to avoid either.

As far as I'm concerned, this passage has absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. And anyway, you can still masturbate without ejaculating, and women certainly can. To infer a ban on masturbation from these two passages would take a huge leap of imagination.

This is fascinating. But I don't get it. What was the council of Nicea? How or why would this council 'put in place' Jesus' divinity, and the holy spirit? These things are in The Bible, so they're not just made up afterwards. Are you saying you don't think Jesus was divine, and there's no Holy Spirit?

Ah, you mean dumb, irrational Christians! Like the people who argue that evolutionism must be wrong because Hitler beleived in it.

Fortunately, I'm not aware of this kind of thing. I live in the UK where religion is not widespread, and people like me are in a vast minority and seen as freaks. Churches used to be popular, and you still get a lot of old people in them, but they are dying. In the church I go to, I'm just about the only person there between the ages of 10 and 50. Churches don't ask for money publicly, we only have collections inside the churches which are anonymous.

Thanks! There are so many dumb Christians out there it's hard to know whom to trust! I appreciate the links and will follow them.

 

thespeez:
I just want to express my appreciation for the information you've provided - I forgot to do it in my last post. You're a breath of fresh air!

 

You're welcome.

You and I agree pretty much on this. Unfortunately, others don't see it that way.

Again, I agree. Once more, let's not forget the situation that existed under the conditions that prevailed (hot,dry,horrific sanitation,etc.) at the time that Leviticus was written.

When the persecutions of Christians was letting up during the 4th century, there were groups feuding on what was to be church doctrine. Because there were individuals who were more concerned about winning rather than being right, they did their best to manipulate the teachings of scripture as much as possible. I do question the divinity of Jesus and believe that the holy ghost is not a separate entity, but something that perhaps is within every believer. Keep in mind that this model was created 300 years or so after Jesus died.
Until I have proof that the trinity is authentic, I will have to question it!
As I've listed before, check out:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm
http://www.americanunitarian.org/mianoarius.htm
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=48
Heed my previous warning about the latter website having a fundamentalist bent. This page has some credible information though, IMO.

That's an extreme example. I understand your sentiments, but let's remember that these people for whatever reasons lack a great deal of enlightenment. FTR, I consider many of the fundamentalist organizations to be somewhat cultic in nature. They may not try to "hunt you down" if you wander off or away, but they'll use subtle tactics to try winning you over. They might say that if you don't believe as they do-or don't believe simillarly-you're doomed. I feel that they prey on the weak and the downtrodden. I believe they try to provide, too often, black and white answers for every last life problem that exists. They definitely use, in my opinion simple arguements to try making their points. When one is down and out on his luck, it's understandable why s/he might want to join such a group.

I'll refer you to my previous entry. In addition, I noticed the neo-fundamentalist or what we call here in America the Religious Right movement start taking off right around 1980 or shortly thereafter. Also, the preachers that I had mentioned in my previous entry live lavish lifestyles.

Unfortunately, you're right. I think that once religious groups start concentrating on improving our spiritual selves and do away with politics, we'll be better off!

 

Thanks, I appreciate your kind statements.

 

You've taken the message totally out of context! you have to understand the origional meaning of the message in question. You must understand the culture that prevailed at the time. In the Sermon on the Mount, when he made the remark in question, he was preaching not to his disciples or his allies. He was preaching to his adversaries-among them, the Pharisees! http://www.libchrist.com/bible/lust.html
It's also important to remember that Jesus spoke one way to his followers and another to his adversaries. Also remember that alot of contemporary teaching about sexuality by fundamentalists was derived from Gnostic heresy, which stated that the body and sexual desire was evil.
http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/Lustmt528.html
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/Bibleintimacy.html

For some, this probably should be the case. Keep in mind, however, monogamy is not for everyone and for those who cannot commit themselves to such a closed institution, they need to take the necessary percautions so as to not get into trouble.
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/whymarriage.html

I'm sorry about your situation, but it wasn't the act (sex) that was the problem, it was the fact that your biological parents acted irresponsibile (this assuming that no birth control was used).

Don't forget, though, that King Solomon was not monogamous! He had about 100 wives and 300 concubines!
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/DavdSolomon.html