|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 20, 2017 23:40:03 GMT
That's not the same thing as translating the word. The reason you see it so often is because women are often being discussed who are married or a wife. That doesn't change the fact that it's generic. That’s not a “fact”, it’s someth you just made up. Unless of course you can provide a passage where it is clearly NOT referring to a married woman. Can a man lust after his willing wife; yes or no? All of this is hair-splitting. "The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidence that human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God." Thomas Paine Oh, and there is this: "The same people who wrote the bible thought the world was flat." Unknown |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 21, 2017 1:24:27 GMT
That’s not a “fact”, it’s someth you just made up. Unless of course you can provide a passage where it is clearly NOT referring to a married woman. Can a man lust after his willing wife; yes or no? All of this is hair-splitting. "The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidence that human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God." Thomas Paine Oh, and there is this: "The same people who wrote the bible thought the world was flat." Unknown With respect to the second statement, there is little actual evidence of that. That is an idea that has been perpetuated only in relatively recent times. In fact, there is no evidence that any significant society in any time in human history ever taught collectively that the earth was "flat". |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 21, 2017 2:00:30 GMT
captainbryceI didn;t make up the Greek language nor did I write one verse of Scripture.Matthew 5:28.  I don;t knew yes or no on command like a pet. Sometimes when a question is misguided enough, you just have to suffer through a correct answer rather than a simplistic one. Sexual attraction and lust are not the same thing. There are no scriptures that indicate a man lusts after his willing wife (The same argument used for why masturbation is awesome...) which makes sense considering that even in the real world that you apparently don't live in, lust is a selfish trait. It needs no partner whatsoever which is why it goes so well with porn rather than a healthy marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 21, 2017 2:30:19 GMT
captainbryce I didn;t make up the Greek language nor did I write one verse of Scripture.Matthew 5:28. Uh, no. In this case, the passage is clearly speaking of adultery. Contextually, it wouldn't make any sense if it was in reference to a "single woman". The woman being "married" is essential for it to be a reference to adultery. What else you got? I don;t knew yes or no on command like a pet. Sometimes when a question is misguided enough, you just have to suffer through a correct answer rather than a simplistic one. Translation: you can't answer the question for fear that the TRUE answer completely destroys your point, and you know it!  The simple answer to the question is YES. And because the answer is yes, your logic of lust ALWAYS being bad fails! Sexual attraction and lust are not the same thing. I didn't say it was. However, sexual arousal and sexual lust ARE the same thing. And that's the relevant comparison here. There are no scriptures that indicate a man lusts after his willing wife (The same argument used for why masturbation is awesome...) which makes sense considering that even in the real world that you apparently don't live in, lust is a selfish trait. No. The idea that lust is a selfish trait is one that you just tried to unsuccessfully peddle, but haven't actually demonstrated logically. And by the way, the bible doesn't have to state the obvious in order for the obvious to be true. The bible doesn't say that scratching an itch feels good; but we know it does. In order to suggest that something is a "sin", then there has to be a biblical reference or rationale for why it would be. Otherwise you have no case! It needs no partner whatsoever which is why it goes so well with porn rather than a healthy marriage. It (masturbation presumably) also needs no porn, and can go well with a healthy marriage as well. Something you obviously haven't considered. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Oct 21, 2017 10:48:34 GMT
Agreed. In fact, one could argue that because of the hands close proximity to the groin area God has implied through creation that masturbation is natural and to be encouraged. Or, that natural selection favored humans with that hand/groin proximity, and clearly the species hasn't died out because of 'touching themselves'. (And that also leaves a god out of it entirely!) Win/win! Edit: OSV, didn't that phrase, or an observation close to it, appear in Christopher Hitchen's book "god is not great"? Perhaps. It would be a coincidence, I haven't read any Christopher Hitchen's yet. |
|
