Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 20:15:43 GMT
So does love and procreation! It ultimately depends on who the object of lust is, and what action is associated with lust that would make it sinful. And I would actually argue that neither rape nor molestation have anything to do with lust, but more to do with power and control. Psychologically speaking, rape is an abnormal desire exhibited by those who seek to control and dominate, and has little to do with normal sexual desire (which lust is). But I’m more interested in these so called 7 deadly sins. Is that actually biblical? Or is that more of a secular idea? What exactly is "God’s free, total, faithful, fruitful love"? I get as long as a certain sexual act represents that image than it's not a sin, but how do you know if that's what really what represents that image? Those terms can have different meanings to different people. What makes pre-marital sex less valuable than marital sex if they fit within those same terms?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 30, 2018 20:40:52 GMT
Most of the comments I've seen, & I don't look at all of them, seem to be providing verses to describe lusts in the Bible with others than pretending that lusts is the same as desire or arousal. Procreation does not need to happen as a result of lust . Desire and lust are not the same thing in scripture which, as I already said, is specifically referring to a lack of self-control in regards to a want. Basically, whether you should or shouldn't do it isn't in play because lust will lead you to do it anyway. That the word is usually mixed in with a bunch of other bad stuff. If one googles lust vs. desire, there are more than sufficient discussions between the differences. If one sticks to the notion that a contradiction is there, then the debate is pointless. Well, it's pointless anyway... This is a common sense argument. If desire is shown as a good thing in the Bible and the Bible mentions lust is a sin or a thing to avoid, then clearly the two things are not the same. It still seems like you're going by your own interpretation of lust, but if that's how the Bible defines it (which I'm not sure it does) then there's two different definitions of lust. One being a strong sexual desire according to the dictionary, and the other being a lack of self control in regards to a want according to you. But where does the Bible say that's what lust is? I would argue that almost all of the time procreation does involve lust to some degree even if it's not the only thing. Only having kids for the sake or procreation isn't exactly a good basis if there's no emotional connection of the parents. Love is important, but so is lust considering it can be seen as good if combined with something good. If it's used for a good purpose then I don't see how lust should be considered a sin regardless of circumstance. I am not doing it off my views of what the Bible says. It’s what the Bible says.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 30, 2018 22:17:06 GMT
What exactly is "God’s free, total, faithful, fruitful love"? I get as long as a certain sexual act represents that image than it's not a sin, but how do you know if that's what really what represents that image? Those terms can have different meanings to different people. What makes pre-marital sex less valuable than marital sex if they fit within those same terms? The difference is the love between the couple. A lot of people just have sex, but, no love. Marriage makes the sexual love between the couple a covenant, and official, as opposed to pre-marital.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 30, 2018 22:54:45 GMT
It still seems like you're going by your own interpretation of lust, but if that's how the Bible defines it (which I'm not sure it does) then there's two different definitions of lust. One being a strong sexual desire according to the dictionary, and the other being a lack of self control in regards to a want according to you. But where does the Bible say that's what lust is? I would argue that almost all of the time procreation does involve lust to some degree even if it's not the only thing. Only having kids for the sake or procreation isn't exactly a good basis if there's no emotional connection of the parents. Love is important, but so is lust considering it can be seen as good if combined with something good. If it's used for a good purpose then I don't see how lust should be considered a sin regardless of circumstance. I am not doing it off my views of what the Bible says. It’s what the Bible says. No it isn’t. That’s what YOU say. I’ve already challenged you to prove that this is what the Bible says and you went silent. You know why you went silent? Because it says no such thing!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 30, 2018 23:09:10 GMT
What exactly is "God’s free, total, faithful, fruitful love"? I get as long as a certain sexual act represents that image than it's not a sin, but how do you know if that's what really what represents that image? Those terms can have different meanings to different people. What makes pre-marital sex less valuable than marital sex if they fit within those same terms? The difference is the love between the couple. A lot of people just have sex, but, no love. Marriage makes the sexual love between the couple a covenant, and official, as opposed to pre-marital. Marriage is a legal contract accompanied by a traditional ceremony. It doesn’t mean jack shit beyond that. For the FEW who actually hold it as a “religious” thing, that is a matter of personal belief (with very weak scriptural backing). I think the point monicah was trying to make is that a couple who loves each other doesn’t need a piece of paper and a ceremony or vows to experience the emotion of LOVE for each other. And that certainly has no bearing on sex. Marriage doesn’t actually “change” the act of sex, or the emotion of love. It only puts into vows what people who agree to it already feel (before being married). If it took the act of marriage to make people experience love for each other (sexual or otherwise), then nobody would ever get married! Marriages would have to be “fixed” by their parents because nobody would ever develop an intimate love for anyone else. That’s why I find your perspective on marriage so ridiculous. People become a loving couple (sex and all) BEFORE they decide to get married, not after. Because that’s often how they’ll know whether they are marrying the right person. Yes, a lot of unmarried people do have sex without love, but the inverse of that statement is a lot of other people do not! And they aren’t all married. Just because a loving couple decides not to get married does not imply that there is no love involved when they have sex. I’ve been with my current partner for over 2 years. We love each other and are not married. We will never be married because neither of us is religious, and neither sees the point of marriage other than to create legal complications and consequences. Does that mean our love is not genuine according to you?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 30, 2018 23:54:32 GMT
The difference is the love between the couple. A lot of people just have sex, but, no love. Marriage makes the sexual love between the couple a covenant, and official, as opposed to pre-marital. Marriage is a legal contract accompanied by a traditional ceremony. It doesn’t mean jack shit beyond that. For the FEW who actually hold it as a “religious” thing, that is a matter of personal belief (with very weak scriptural backing). I think the point monicah was trying to make is that a couple who loves each other doesn’t need a piece of paper and a ceremony or vows to experience the emotion of LOVE for each other. And that certainly has no bearing on sex. Marriage doesn’t actually “change” the act of sex, or the emotion of love. It only puts into vows what people who agree to it already feel (before being married). If it took the act of marriage to make people experience love for each other (sexual or otherwise), then nobody would ever get married! Marriages would have to be “fixed” by their parents because nobody would ever develop an intimate love for anyone else. That’s why I find your perspective on marriage so ridiculous. People become a loving couple (sex and all) BEFORE they decide to get married, not after. Because that’s often how they’ll know whether they are marrying the right person. Yes, a lot of unmarried people do have sex without love, but the inverse of that statement is a lot of other people do not! And they aren’t all married. Just because a loving couple decides not to get married does not imply that there is no love involved when they have sex. I’ve been with my current partner for over 2 years. We love each other and are not married. We will never be married because neither of us is religious, and neither sees the point of marriage other than to create legal complications and consequences. Does that mean our love is not genuine according to you? Unlike you, Monicah watched the video, & I was responding to her question, regarding what was taught in it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 1:33:39 GMT
I'd like to also note that something not being "neatly laid out in a nice concise package" in Scripture doesn't mean it isn't valid. That ultimately depends on your denomination, Church, upbringing, and personal beliefs. Catholics have a very, VERY different stance on this than most Protestants. I dunno. Even Protestants that accept Sola Scriptura don't necessarily believe that something needs to be "codified" in the Bible to be true. The concept of Sola Scriptura itself isn't even in the Bible. The more I dig into Church history, the more I end up actually agreeing with the Orthodox Church's view of things. After all, they are the ones who actually canonized the Scriptures that we have (though the process of deciding what should be canon was rather organic).
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2018 3:20:28 GMT
That ultimately depends on your denomination, Church, upbringing, and personal beliefs. Catholics have a very, VERY different stance on this than most Protestants. I dunno. Even Protestants that accept Sola Scriptura don't necessarily believe that something needs to be "codified" in the Bible to be true. The concept of Sola Scriptura itself isn't even in the Bible. There are many arguments on both sides to support or invalidate this point. But because I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m not going to make one. I’m only stating that different Christians feel differently about this. I know from personal experience. Protestant bullshit is also bullshit, it’s just a different flavor than the Catholic bullshit. It’s all the same to me and none of it is worth defending as far as I’m concerned. Funny, the more I’ve learned about church history (over the years), the more of an atheist I became. I guess “the Lord” works in mysterious ways after all.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2018 3:25:16 GMT
Marriage is a legal contract accompanied by a traditional ceremony. It doesn’t mean jack shit beyond that. For the FEW who actually hold it as a “religious” thing, that is a matter of personal belief (with very weak scriptural backing). I think the point monicah was trying to make is that a couple who loves each other doesn’t need a piece of paper and a ceremony or vows to experience the emotion of LOVE for each other. And that certainly has no bearing on sex. Marriage doesn’t actually “change” the act of sex, or the emotion of love. It only puts into vows what people who agree to it already feel (before being married). If it took the act of marriage to make people experience love for each other (sexual or otherwise), then nobody would ever get married! Marriages would have to be “fixed” by their parents because nobody would ever develop an intimate love for anyone else. That’s why I find your perspective on marriage so ridiculous. People become a loving couple (sex and all) BEFORE they decide to get married, not after. Because that’s often how they’ll know whether they are marrying the right person. Yes, a lot of unmarried people do have sex without love, but the inverse of that statement is a lot of other people do not! And they aren’t all married. Just because a loving couple decides not to get married does not imply that there is no love involved when they have sex. I’ve been with my current partner for over 2 years. We love each other and are not married. We will never be married because neither of us is religious, and neither sees the point of marriage other than to create legal complications and consequences. Does that mean our love is not genuine according to you? Unlike you, Monicah watched the video, & I was responding to her question, regarding what was taught in it. And I was responding to your statement. If you choose not to defend it anymore (using whatever convenient rationale you want to conjure), that’s your prerogative. I think I’ve successfully destroyed it whether you choose to answer or not.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 31, 2018 4:03:44 GMT
Unlike you, Monicah watched the video, & I was responding to her question, regarding what was taught in it. And I was responding to your statement. If you choose not to defend it anymore (using whatever convenient rationale you want to conjure), that’s your prerogative. I think I’ve successfully destroyed it whether you choose to answer or not. Think what you like. I've explained myself on this thread, & you choose not view any video which I choose to share (which happen to be very enlightening, BTW). If someone asks me a question regarding said video, I will answer.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 31, 2018 10:33:00 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 10:59:17 GMT
What exactly is "God’s free, total, faithful, fruitful love"? I get as long as a certain sexual act represents that image than it's not a sin, but how do you know if that's what really what represents that image? Those terms can have different meanings to different people. What makes pre-marital sex less valuable than marital sex if they fit within those same terms? The difference is the love between the couple. A lot of people just have sex, but, no love. Marriage makes the sexual love between the couple a covenant, and official, as opposed to pre-marital. What makes the love of a couple more valuable if they're married? Married people could also just have sex but not love each other.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 31, 2018 12:57:42 GMT
The difference is the love between the couple. A lot of people just have sex, but, no love. Marriage makes the sexual love between the couple a covenant, and official, as opposed to pre-marital. What makes the love of a couple more valuable if they're married? Married people could also just have sex but not love each other. I just answered your question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 13:15:49 GMT
What makes the love of a couple more valuable if they're married? Married people could also just have sex but not love each other. I just answered your question. You said: "Marriage makes the sexual love between the couple a covenant, and official, as opposed to pre-marital." But didn't explain how it makes it that way. That's what I'm trying to ask. There's no reason to say that pre-marital sex shouldn't be seen as a covenant or official when it comes to love. I can see where marriage has that label put on it as a covenant, but it doesn't exactly make the covenant any more valuable.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 31, 2018 13:37:00 GMT
I just answered your question. You said: "Marriage makes the sexual love between the couple a covenant, and official, as opposed to pre-marital." But didn't explain how it makes it that way. That's what I'm trying to ask. There's no reason to say that pre-marital sex shouldn't be seen as a covenant or official when it comes to love. I can see where marriage has that label put on it as a covenant, but it doesn't exactly make the covenant any more valuable. Why Marriage Is Better Than Cohabitation
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2018 13:57:38 GMT
And I was responding to your statement. If you choose not to defend it anymore (using whatever convenient rationale you want to conjure), that’s your prerogative. I think I’ve successfully destroyed it whether you choose to answer or not. Think what you like. I've explained myself on this thread, & you choose not view any video which I choose to share (which happen to be very enlightening, BTW). If someone asks me a question regarding said video, I will answer. If you want feedback on videos you post, I recommend starting your own thread and asking for feedback on your videos. This thread is about my question to posters here. Consequently, I’m not interested in YouTube video responses (as I’ve explained to you)..
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2018 14:01:08 GMT
When you do a google search for “lust verses in the Bible”, I’m sure you can come up with all kinds of verses which mention lust. Ultimately, random verses that have the word lust in them means NOTHING absent of context. I can pick any of these verses at random, and put them into the proper context that invalidates your assumptions. For example: let’s just start with the first one that mentions lust in the context of PROSTITUTION. Need I say more?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2018 14:43:39 GMT
The difference is the love between the couple. A lot of people just have sex, but, no love. Marriage makes the sexual love between the couple a covenant, and official, as opposed to pre-marital. What makes the love of a couple more valuable if they're married? Married people could also just have sex but not love each other. She can’t answer that question. I basically asked her the same thing, and her response was for me to go back and watch her propaganda video. And the reason she can’t answer it is because she knows that the answer invalidates her own position. She cannot articulate her own position logically, so she has to use similar arguments of other people in the hopes that they actually address statements she has made here. This is the type of cognitive dissonance that is required by religion. They know there is no logical answer to the question, so instead of answering it they try to divert and distract with propaganda, hoping to bolster the legitimacy of religion. Then claim that they already answered the question they avoided. Typical, failed fundamentalist strategy!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 31, 2018 14:52:54 GMT
When you do a google search for “lust verses in the Bible”, I’m sure you can come up with all kinds of verses which mention lust. Ultimately, random verses that have the word lust in them means NOTHING absent of context. I can pick any of these verses at random, and put them into the proper context that invalidates your assumptions. For example: let’s just start with the first one that mentions lust in the context of PROSTITUTION. Need I say more? Do you want me to add context?
I was just trying to list all instances.
I'm a big believer in context being key so maybe one of these verse will have the context of lust, falling in love, and having children.
Something tells me that knowing the context is not going to help your cause at all since you don't appear to have one beyond whining.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2018 15:01:56 GMT
When you do a google search for “lust verses in the Bible”, I’m sure you can come up with all kinds of verses which mention lust. Ultimately, random verses that have the word lust in them means NOTHING absent of context. I can pick any of these verses at random, and put them into the proper context that invalidates your assumptions. For example: let’s just start with the first one that mentions lust in the context of PROSTITUTION. Need I say more? Do you want me to add context?
I was just trying to list all instances.
I'm a big believer in context being key so maybe one of these verse will have the context of lust, falling in love, and having children.
Something tells me that knowing the context is not going to help your cause at all since you don't appear to have one beyond whining.
Something tells me that you are incapable of making your point in any capacity (must less without whining). The fact that you think listing all instances where lust in mentioned in the Bible without adding any context to such verses proves your assertion that lust in general is a sin proves just how little grasp you have on the subject and how terrible you are at debating issues. Don’t ask me for suggestions about how you should validate your own point. Either you can make a solid argument or you can’t. And I think that if you were capable of making a point that backed up your argument, you’d have done so by now. At this point you’re basically just wasting time as usual.
|
|