Sinful Sexual Thoughts

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Too bad vistesd gave up biblical exegesis. I suspect most of the Christians on here like the verse just as it is and will not be motivated to find an alternate interpretation.

Nobody on here has a greater sense (or even perhaps as great a sense) of how the gospel messages of freedom and healing need to be articulated to the actual, concrete human condition in a non-abstract way, than Kirk. And I’m not sure that anyone does it as well—sometimes with (even salty) humor, sometimes (as with his reading of the parable of the elder son) with deep personal feeling that gets to the marrow of that human condition, and communicates it. He knows that you can’t touch someone else’s soul without laying bare your own—at least to yourself.

I exegete words, and find that salvation (soterias) actually means healing, making-well, making-whole. Kirk knew that a long time ago, without having to look up the Greek. I exegete words to discover alternatives, or even mistakes. Kirk mines the human condition—including his own—to offer meaning. My exegesis is mechanical; Kirk’s is artful. He has been one of my teachers. (Oh, the mechanics can lead to art; they don’t necessarily.)

Text is text; life is life. If Kirk decides to lay his mind on this text, he’ll undoubtedly give it life.

Originally posted by darvlay
EDIT - And also avoiding eye contact with extremely beautiful women is God's wish as well.

Damn it!!! I'm so toasted... 😞

Originally posted by darvlay
Surely there is a scriptural list somewhere? Why would I be interested in your personal list?

I have no personal list...

Originally posted by kirksey957
Let me ask you this: In the context of marriage, which is better? Delightfully normal or crazy nasty?

I would go for delightfully normal!

Originally posted by darvlay
God made us as we are. We are sexual beings, among other things. Healthy sexual thoughts bring us pleasure and harm no one. To claim that sexual thoughts are a sin in the eyes of God makes me abhor Christianity even more than I thought possible.

If these such thoughts are so terrible and sinful, why would a god make us this way and why would he progra ...[text shortened]... sy and possessiveness be damned. Let's love each other, as God intended.

Thoughts?

Your girlfriend's just caught you downloading porn, hasn't she?

Originally posted by dottewell
Your girlfriend's just caught you downloading porn, hasn't she?

Gold!

Originally posted by dottewell
Your girlfriend's just caught you downloading porn, hasn't she?

Maybe you could have a talk with her?

Originally posted by darvlay
Maybe you could have a talk with her?

Sure. Send her round.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You mean, like, BJ's?

If that is what floats your boat.......

Originally posted by darvlay
Sex can be "respectful" without "perversion" or marriage (whatever those terms mean).

Your post made me think...

Even perverted sex can be respectful (and within marriage). What is wrong with perverted sex if everyone involved is up for it? Everyone is different, no one is "normal" are they?

Come on Christians, you need to be a lot more specific about what you mean by "normal" and "perverted" if you want what you say to have any actual meaning.

Why would God program us to be such a sexual species? It doesn't make sense at all. How come priests who are supposed to be the most pious and without sin fall to temptation and touch little boys?

Because over ten thousand years the people who were not sexual had their genes die out, and the ones who didn't are alive now. This allows for a range between sexual people all the way to the extreme, but everybody on earth feels it! That's why advertising is so sexual. Of course this is an oversimplification of evolution, but it's better than not having it mentioned at all.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Unfortunately, Christ didn't replace the rules of old; he made them worse.

"He who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." -JC

OK, I'm going to take a stab at this since it appears I've done a lot of fornicating in my heart. As I recall, the context of this passage is a time in which women were divorced for nothing more than over-cooking the eggs. A husband could simply give a writ of divorce that easily. Divorced women were outcast and without recourse for support from that society. They were left to go home and live off their family in shame. In the same "sermon" Jesus talks about anger (vs. 21-22)and relates it to muder. I believe the verb tense indicates a "continual anger" that does not go away . I am suggesting that there is a cultural context for what he says about marriage. He is upping the stakes for it as it was becoming simply a piece of paper to be abused. Following this passage he talks about plucking out your eye if it offends you. Surely you don't think this is to be taken literally. If so, we would have a bunch of blind amputees running around.

It is still OK to eat lunch at Hooters. Jesus would approve of their kosher wings.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Unfortunately, Christ didn't replace the rules of old; he made them worse.

"He who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." -JC

Lusting means here to "covet," and adultery the act of sleeping with someone who is not your spouse, whether you are married or unmarried. For the Israelites in those days adultery was punished publicly, but coveting remains to this day impossible to punish. Rather than an outward act, coveting is an inward matter of the heart. Only God is able to judge a covetous heart. Revealing the Kingdom of God to men, Christ links the legally punishable "adultery" with the impossible to punish lusting or "coveting" quite deliberately, because in God's immanent Kingdom matters of the heart are judged equal with outward acts.

What Jesus is really underscoring in all of this is the need for everyone to receive a new nature altogether. You're right, it is impossible for people to not lust. Christ died for us in order that we might believe in Him and thereby receive a new nature -- to be "born again" -- created anew in Christ. In Christ the old nature is crucified and put away, and the new nature, instead of lusting against God and bringing forth misery, serves God and brings forth the fruit of the Spirit.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Lusting means here to "covet," and adultery the act of sleeping with someone who is not your spouse, whether you are married or unmarried. For the Israelites in those days adultery was punished publicly, but coveting remains to this day impossible to punish. Rather than an outward act, coveting is an inward matter of the heart. Only God is able to jud ...[text shortened]... st God and bringing forth misery, serves God and brings forth the fruit of the Spirit.

But isn't lust one of those things that is just a reminder that you are still alive. My wife says she'll worry about me when I stop looking.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Following this passage he talks about plucking out your eye if it offends you. Surely you don't think this is to be taken literally. If so, we would have a bunch of blind amputees running around.

Actually I tried to argue in another thread that you should take it literally. So far the main argument given for not doing so is the same as yours. But surely we could apply that to anything in the Bible? eg:
1. Jesus cant have been serious about giving up everything and following him, after all we would have a bunch of beggars running around.
2. Jesus cant have been serious about the parable of the sheep and the goats, after all we cant help everyone.
3. Jesus cant have been serious about [ insert random teaching by Jesus ] , after all that is far to difficult and might result in a change we don't like.

So why did Jesus say things he didn't mean?

Some argued that they are parables and therefore not to be taken literally, but what use is a parable if its teaching is not to be taken literally? What is the teaching then? Nobody was able to explain to me what the actual teaching was meant to be.