Originally posted by twhiteheadJust go to Hooters and have a blessed day, my brotha. "My yoke is easy, my burden light."
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 ...[text shortened]... the teaching then? Nobody was able to explain to me what the actual teaching was meant to be.
Originally posted by kirksey957A few random thoughts after reading your post:
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 s ...[text shortened]... d.
It is still OK to eat lunch at Hooters. Jesus would approve of their kosher wings.
1) It's possible for a speaker to speak both literally and metaphorically in the same speech. I can see how "plucking out thine eye" bit can be read metaphorically, but not the part about looking upon a woman.
2) The language about 'looking upon a woman' is very clear and direct - and of broader scope than just married men.
3) If the intent was simply to prevent trivial divorces, verses 31-32 make 27-28 superfluous.
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhy are we being judged for something that God designed us to do?
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.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandMy dear snowinscotland, whose post did I reply to?
My dear SwissGambit, who do you think is judging you?
No, that's just too simplistic. Why would it be to be seen to 'covet' outside your relationship(s)?
It will help if you try to follow the flow of the discussion, rather than just reading a single post in isolation from the rest.
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt was the way you put it:- I read it as if you thought a person was judging you...
My dear snowinscotland, whose post did I reply to?
It will help if you try to follow the flow of the discussion, rather than just reading a single post in isolation from the rest.
So do you think god is judging you? for what he designed you for? Or were yoiu telling epi that he/she has got wrapped up way too tight?
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe tried but you never listened!!!
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 ...[text shortened]... the teaching then? Nobody was able to explain to me what the actual teaching was meant to be.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitIsn't one religious line of thought that God deliberately designed us to experience sexual temptation so that we could freely exercise our will not to succumb to it?
Why are we being judged for something that God designed us to do?
Isn't sexual temptation one of God's ways of creating the possibility that second-order moral virtues, such as prudence and continence, could come into existence?
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlaySuppose my "loving" your girlfriend, in a knowing Biblical way, would cause you sorrow and pain, even though it would cause me and her joy and pleasure.
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 sy and possessiveness be damned. Let's love each other, as God intended.
Thoughts?
Is it automatically the morally better thing to do is for me and her to "love" one another (as she has "loved" you)?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt escapes me....i cant believe that none of what "we" said was understandable...."we" couldn't have explained it easier.....
I did listen (read actually), but you each had a different interpretation (so your use of 'we' doesn't work) and none of you had an understandable one.
Do you remember which thread it was so I can refresh my memory?