| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/12/2011 04:13:13 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
I am, however, an aggressive person - which, mind you - has been quite a successful strategy for me. |
I guess the next time a Christian tells you what you should do you can just understand they are aggressive as well... ;P |
I do... But they don't really usually seem to have their heart in it... Seems like often they're often only aggressive because they have to be... |
They are agressive because they do not know what they are talking about. |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:13:57 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
lols, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. |
If your greek were as good as your latin, you might not have posted... :) Actually your latin isn't that good either because that term relates to the fallacy of finding a correlate cause between two unrelated but subsequent events.
You are more properly probably trying to accuse me of anachronistically defining the greek word per our current cultural beliefs. I assure you I am not.
Message edited by author 2011-10-12 16:18:04. |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:24:32 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Hint: to the best of my knowledge nowhere in the Bible does Jesus condemn premarital sex. |
The best passages, if we are to limit ourself to Jesus' sayings would come in Matthew and Mark.
Matthew 5 âYou have heard that it was said, âYou shall not commit adultery.â But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mark 7 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."
The greek word in Mark 7 is "porneia" (from which we derive the word "pornography") and is different than adultery ("moicheia") which is also listed. And while you may object that you don't see any explicit use of the term "premarital", I think you'd have difficulty making the case for being able to condone premarital sex in the context of these two passages. |
Thanks. A response such as this from Marko would have been welcome and constructive, however if we infer from these passages that premarital sex is against the teachings of Jesus we still can not in any way establish how strongly this covenant should be held comparatively to any number of other activities that from the same passages we must also infer are not condoned by the teachings of Jesus, I'm sure many of which Marko would be guilty of (as would we all). So, this being the case, is he not holding his room mate up to a standard that he himself does not adhere to? |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:30:21 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by TheDruid:
lols, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. |
If your greek were as good as your latin, you might not have posted... :) Actually your latin isn't that good either because that term relates to the fallacy of finding a correlate cause between two unrelated but subsequent events.
You are more properly probably trying to accuse me of anachronistically defining the greek word per our current cultural beliefs. I assure you I am not. |
nope, you used two phrases to be the bases of your argument, exhibit A (What mathew/Mark wrote/said) and said because of it came to a result B (Premerital Sex based on the two passages). Avoiding A will not prevent B. |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:30:34 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Thanks. A response such as this from Marko would have been welcome and constructive, however if we infer from these passages that premarital sex is against the teachings of Jesus we still can not in any way establish how strongly this covenant should be held comparatively to any number of other activities that from the same passages we must also infer are not condoned by the teachings of Jesus, I'm sure many of which Marko would be guilty of (as would we all). So, this being the case, is he not holding his room mate up to a standard that he himself does not adhere to? |
I'd go back to the Samuel Jackson quote. If the only way one can advise another is if they perfectly meet the standard being advised, there would be little advice given in the world. One can both see the wisdom in a truth and ignore that wisdom. It doesn't make the truth less true.
I still see irony in telling someone that they shouldn't tell others what to do.
Message edited by author 2011-10-12 16:32:49. |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:31:31 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
nope, you used two phrases to be the bases of your argument, exhibit A (What mathew/Mark wrote/said) and said because of it came to a result B (Premerital Sex based on the two passages). Avoiding A will not prevent B. |
Come again? I honestly don't get what you are saying. |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:36:12 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Hint: to the best of my knowledge nowhere in the Bible does Jesus condemn premarital sex. |
The best passages, if we are to limit ourself to Jesus' sayings would come in Matthew and Mark.
Matthew 5 âYou have heard that it was said, âYou shall not commit adultery.â But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mark 7 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."
The greek word in Mark 7 is "porneia" (from which we derive the word "pornography") and is different than adultery ("moicheia") which is also listed. And while you may object that you don't see any explicit use of the term "premarital", I think you'd have difficulty making the case for being able to condone premarital sex in the context of these two passages. |
Thanks. A response such as this from Marko would have been welcome and constructive, however if we infer from these passages that premarital sex is against the teachings of Jesus we still can not in any way establish how strongly this covenant should be held comparatively to any number of other activities that from the same passages we must also infer are not condoned by the teachings of Jesus, I'm sure many of which Marko would be guilty of (as would we all). So, this being the case, is he not holding his room mate up to a standard that he himself does not adhere to? |
he is trying to live by the law not by the grace, because he does not like the guy.
Message edited by author 2011-10-12 16:36:51. |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:39:42 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
he is trying to live by the law not by the grace, because he does not like the guy. |
It seems like he has been repentant of this attitude on multiple occasions... |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:40:15 PM · #159 |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:40:37 PM · #160 |
| On a slightly lighter note, when I hear "Samuel Jackson quote" I can't help but anticipate; "I have had it with these monkey fighting snakes on this monday to friday plane" =). |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:43:28 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Thanks. A response such as this from Marko would have been welcome and constructive, however if we infer from these passages that premarital sex is against the teachings of Jesus we still can not in any way establish how strongly this covenant should be held comparatively to any number of other activities that from the same passages we must also infer are not condoned by the teachings of Jesus, I'm sure many of which Marko would be guilty of (as would we all). So, this being the case, is he not holding his room mate up to a standard that he himself does not adhere to? |
I'd go back to the Samuel Jackson quote. If the only way one can advise another is if they perfectly meet the standard being advised, there would be little advice given in the world. One can both see the wisdom in a truth and ignore that wisdom. It doesn't make the truth less true.
I still see irony in telling someone that they shouldn't tell others what to do. |
but here, good doctor, the advice is completely contrary to human nature: committing adultery by having lustful thoughts? the sin of sensuality? Well done for finding the quotes but do you really believe these things? These 'sinful' thoughts are surely natural and normal. Aren't these sinful impulses older than Jesus and the bible and aren't they the stimulus for procreation? Are you only allowed to have sensual thoughts towards a person after you've had a bible-sanctioned wedding? |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:55:33 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
"I think it's nice when"  Cory shuts his suck. |
Hmm... Your rational and intelligent comment has left me considering your side of this very strongly... How did you learn to use such strong logic in your arguments? From whom did you learn your amazing skills of persuasion?
heheh.. Weak. At least the Doc looks like he's thinking.
Don't worry though, I understand that it's a required part of your religion - the flock must stick together and all that, even if you don't exactly agree with each other, no greater evil than an outsider :) Remember my statement about the prey not hanging about with the predators? At least I understand this logic and think it makes good sense...
Anyway, what the hell is a "suck"? That's not even a noun for crying out loud... jeez. SMH |
Oh come on, you know where your "suck" is. That is what I hear anyway..."Suck" the noun
It is amusing to see you assume you know my religion anything. FWIW I do not have a religion; There is no way I can believe in anything "Holy" after the events that have taken place in my life.
You know what happens when you assume... You make an "ass" out of "you" and ...finish it... Well it's OK, you don't have to finish it, you already proved it. |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 04:55:54 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
but here, good doctor, the advice is completely contrary to human nature: committing adultery by having lustful thoughts? the sin of sensuality? Well done for finding the quotes but do you really believe these things? These 'sinful' thoughts are surely natural and normal. Aren't these sinful impulses older than Jesus and the bible and aren't they the stimulus for procreation? Are you only allowed to have sensual thoughts towards a person after you've had a bible-sanctioned wedding? |
In short? Yes.
Human nature is not to be trusted when it comes to proper action. That seems patently obvious.
You and Cory both harped on the term "sensuality", but you, of course, have to look at the greek of the text. The word is aselgeia. Here is a good, brief passage on the term:
Aselgeia is mostly used to denote extremes of violence, sexual licentiousness, or insolence. Some specific examples from Plutarch help to narrow down what kind of behavior is intended when aselgeia is used to refer to sexual misdeeds. In Par. Min. 311.A.5, Smyrna falls in love with her father Cimyras and tricks him into consorting with her in the dark. When Cimyras finds out the truth, he pursues this âmost wanton womanâ (tēn aselgestatēn) with the sword. In Par. min. 314.A.11, Phaedrea is described as âthe wanton womanâ (hē aselgēs) for falling in love with her step-son and pursuing him. In Pel. 28.5.1, Plutarch speaks of a woman oppressed by a tyrant who, âin addition to his other debaucheries (aselgeias), had made her youngest brother his paramour.â
Demosthenes accuses a man of treating his slave-girl aselgōs by having sex with her openly at parties (Neaer. 59.33.1). Finally, a Cynic writer (Heraclitus, Epistle 7.5) complains of âa single young man who through licentiousness (aselgeian) is the lover of an entire city.â
Jewish writers almost always use this word in its sexual sense. In his comments on Gal 5:20, J. B. Lightfoot writes, âA man may be akathartos [impure] and hide his sin; he does not become aselgēs, until he shocks public decency.â The term may have been used to refer to what were regarded as the most shameless violations of the sexuality taught in the Torah. For instance, in T. Levi 17:11, the Jewish writer lumps âlicentious personsâ directly together with âthe lawless, pederasts, those who practice bestiality.â Philo (Spec. 3:23) uses the word to describe the âlewdnessâ of marriage to oneâs own sister.
Josephus (B. J. 4:562) speaks of a Zealot named Simon and his buddies who invade the Temple during the insanity of 68 AD and proceed to imitate the dress and passions of women, devising in their âextreme lasciviousnessâ (hyperbolen aselgeian) unlawful pleasures and wallowing as in a brothel. Josephus also tells (A. J. 20:112) of a Roman soldier on guard in the Temple portico during Passover who uncovers and exposes his genitals to the multitude; he laments the fact that 20,000 stampede and die that day because of the âindecent behavior (aselgeia) of one soldier.â
|
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:03:03 PM · #164 |
| This thread has now left me wondering: Did the girl have her baby yet?? |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:07:14 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
This thread has now left me wondering: Did the girl have her baby yet?? |
What girl? Ohhh, that girl... |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:08:27 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
but here, good doctor, the advice is completely contrary to human nature: committing adultery by having lustful thoughts? the sin of sensuality? Well done for finding the quotes but do you really believe these things? These 'sinful' thoughts are surely natural and normal. Aren't these sinful impulses older than Jesus and the bible and aren't they the stimulus for procreation? Are you only allowed to have sensual thoughts towards a person after you've had a bible-sanctioned wedding? |
In short? Yes.
Human nature is not to be trusted when it comes to proper action. That seems patently obvious.
You and Cory both harped on the term "sensuality", but you, of course, have to look at the greek of the text. The word is aselgeia. Here is a good, brief passage on the term:
Aselgeia is mostly used to denote extremes of violence, sexual licentiousness, or insolence. Some specific examples from Plutarch help to narrow down what kind of behavior is intended when aselgeia is used to refer to sexual misdeeds. In Par. Min. 311.A.5, Smyrna falls in love with her father Cimyras and tricks him into consorting with her in the dark. When Cimyras finds out the truth, he pursues this âmost wanton womanâ (tēn aselgestatēn) with the sword. In Par. min. 314.A.11, Phaedrea is described as âthe wanton womanâ (hē aselgēs) for falling in love with her step-son and pursuing him. In Pel. 28.5.1, Plutarch speaks of a woman oppressed by a tyrant who, âin addition to his other debaucheries (aselgeias), had made her youngest brother his paramour.â
Demosthenes accuses a man of treating his slave-girl aselgōs by having sex with her openly at parties (Neaer. 59.33.1). Finally, a Cynic writer (Heraclitus, Epistle 7.5) complains of âa single young man who through licentiousness (aselgeian) is the lover of an entire city.â
Jewish writers almost always use this word in its sexual sense. In his comments on Gal 5:20, J. B. Lightfoot writes, âA man may be akathartos [impure] and hide his sin; he does not become aselgēs, until he shocks public decency.â The term may have been used to refer to what were regarded as the most shameless violations of the sexuality taught in the Torah. For instance, in T. Levi 17:11, the Jewish writer lumps âlicentious personsâ directly together with âthe lawless, pederasts, those who practice bestiality.â Philo (Spec. 3:23) uses the word to describe the âlewdnessâ of marriage to oneâs own sister.
Josephus (B. J. 4:562) speaks of a Zealot named Simon and his buddies who invade the Temple during the insanity of 68 AD and proceed to imitate the dress and passions of women, devising in their âextreme lasciviousnessâ (hyperbolen aselgeian) unlawful pleasures and wallowing as in a brothel. Josephus also tells (A. J. 20:112) of a Roman soldier on guard in the Temple portico during Passover who uncovers and exposes his genitals to the multitude; he laments the fact that 20,000 stampede and die that day because of the âindecent behavior (aselgeia) of one soldier.â |
Then you chose a particularly bad word for the translation. Or they chose, or.. God chose it, actually, that's it isn't it? God drives these things, so why the heck did he choose that word? -- Wait, does God create the languages themselves? If so, then do you think this could just be a deliberate thing, another test for humanity? ... You're wrapped around the axle over a single word - I just picked the lowest hanging fruit - as far as I'm concerned there were several other options on your list that I don't always think are sins (or better stated, since I don't believe in sin, I don't always feel are wrong)... |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:08:39 PM · #167 |
I'm coming in very late to this party and haven't had time to read the whole thread, so this may have be said... If so, please ignore :)
Regardless of what you do or don't do about your roommate, please be there for the young lady involved. She is the one party in all of this that needs support and advice right now. The problems of you and your roommate seem trival to me in comparison...
She (and you) will be in my prayers for the foreseeable future...
God bless |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:11:09 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
"I think it's nice when" Cory shuts his suck. |
Hmm... Your rational and intelligent comment has left me considering your side of this very strongly... How did you learn to use such strong logic in your arguments? From whom did you learn your amazing skills of persuasion?
heheh.. Weak. At least the Doc looks like he's thinking.
Don't worry though, I understand that it's a required part of your religion - the flock must stick together and all that, even if you don't exactly agree with each other, no greater evil than an outsider :) Remember my statement about the prey not hanging about with the predators? At least I understand this logic and think it makes good sense...
Anyway, what the hell is a "suck"? That's not even a noun for crying out loud... jeez. SMH |
Oh come on, you know where your "suck" is. That is what I hear anyway..."Suck" the noun
It is amusing to see you assume you know my religion anything. FWIW I do not have a religion; There is no way I can believe in anything "Holy" after the events that have taken place in my life.
You know what happens when you assume... You make an "ass" out of "you" and ...finish it... Well it's OK, you don't have to finish it, you already proved it. |
Well, you clearly have me on at least this argument - I apologize for casting you with them. But, now, since you did invite the question: What exactly do you believe?
ETA: And for the record I joined the Army, not the Marine Corps.
Message edited by author 2011-10-12 17:11:41. |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:15:32 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
but here, good doctor, the advice is completely contrary to human nature: committing adultery by having lustful thoughts? the sin of sensuality? Well done for finding the quotes but do you really believe these things? These 'sinful' thoughts are surely natural and normal. Aren't these sinful impulses older than Jesus and the bible and aren't they the stimulus for procreation? Are you only allowed to have sensual thoughts towards a person after you've had a bible-sanctioned wedding? |
In short? Yes.
Human nature is not to be trusted when it comes to proper action. That seems patently obvious.
You and Cory both harped on the term "sensuality", but you, of course, have to look at the greek of the text. The word is aselgeia. Here is a good, brief passage on the term:
Aselgeia is mostly used to denote extremes of violence, sexual licentiousness, or insolence. Some specific examples from Plutarch help to narrow down what kind of behavior is intended when aselgeia is used to refer to sexual misdeeds. In Par. Min. 311.A.5, Smyrna falls in love with her father Cimyras and tricks him into consorting with her in the dark. When Cimyras finds out the truth, he pursues this âmost wanton womanâ (tēn aselgestatēn) with the sword. In Par. min. 314.A.11, Phaedrea is described as âthe wanton womanâ (hē aselgēs) for falling in love with her step-son and pursuing him. In Pel. 28.5.1, Plutarch speaks of a woman oppressed by a tyrant who, âin addition to his other debaucheries (aselgeias), had made her youngest brother his paramour.â
Demosthenes accuses a man of treating his slave-girl aselgōs by having sex with her openly at parties (Neaer. 59.33.1). Finally, a Cynic writer (Heraclitus, Epistle 7.5) complains of âa single young man who through licentiousness (aselgeian) is the lover of an entire city.â
Jewish writers almost always use this word in its sexual sense. In his comments on Gal 5:20, J. B. Lightfoot writes, âA man may be akathartos [impure] and hide his sin; he does not become aselgēs, until he shocks public decency.â The term may have been used to refer to what were regarded as the most shameless violations of the sexuality taught in the Torah. For instance, in T. Levi 17:11, the Jewish writer lumps âlicentious personsâ directly together with âthe lawless, pederasts, those who practice bestiality.â Philo (Spec. 3:23) uses the word to describe the âlewdnessâ of marriage to oneâs own sister.
Josephus (B. J. 4:562) speaks of a Zealot named Simon and his buddies who invade the Temple during the insanity of 68 AD and proceed to imitate the dress and passions of women, devising in their âextreme lasciviousnessâ (hyperbolen aselgeian) unlawful pleasures and wallowing as in a brothel. Josephus also tells (A. J. 20:112) of a Roman soldier on guard in the Temple portico during Passover who uncovers and exposes his genitals to the multitude; he laments the fact that 20,000 stampede and die that day because of the âindecent behavior (aselgeia) of one soldier.â |
Very interesting and informative. Wouldn't you agree, though, that these examples are very extreme? Also, do you argue that the word as we read it in the bible doesn't accurately convey the real intent of the original author(s)? that seems dangerous given that a lot of christians believe in the infallibility of the bible (in English)
All the sins described would not be acceptable behaviour in any civilised society around the world; I wouldn't need to be a Christian or a Greek scholar to think that a single man being the 'lover of an entire city' is a bad idea. All this is a long way from pre marital sex.
I strongly disagree that human nature is not to be trusted when it comes to proper action; humans are capable of, and frequently display, loving, unselfish and caring behaviour. And, when they don't, they often as not use the bible to back up their actions
eta: many a "sinner" would have been a better friend and advisor to Marko's roommate.
Message edited by author 2011-10-12 17:27:11. |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:35:51 PM · #170 |
Young Marko...sending you a PM! :)
Lots of great things mentioned in this thread.
Bottom line, not your problem...don't know for sure the girl is pregnant...and you need to worry about you and what you believe and your actions. In the end, the only thing that will matter (this situation or the life you choose) is how you have lived YOUR life. Just because everyone else is doing something doesn't mean it's ok for "you' to do it also. Stick to your beliefs and what is in your heart and follow that to do what you feel/know is right...not necessarily what others tell you to or are doing! Come judgement day...it's all about how you lived your life and not about anyone else. Best wishes! |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:36:06 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
All the sins described would not be acceptable behaviour in any civilised society around the world; I wouldn't need to be a Christian or a Greek scholar to think that a single man being the 'lover of an entire city' is a bad idea. All this is a long way from pre marital sex.
I strongly disagree that human nature is not to be trusted when it comes to proper action; humans are capable of, and frequently display, loving, unselfish and caring behaviour. And, when they don't, they often as not use the bible to back up their actions
eta: many a "sinner" would have been a better friend and advisor to Marko's roommate. |
Oh, I don't think that humans aren't capable of love, unselfishness, caring. Not at all. I just don't think that is our natural inclination. Our natural inclination is toward selfishness.
I've never met someone who would say the Bible is infallible "in English". (Here, for example, is the doctrinal statment from my own church (I've added the emphasis): "That the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, were inspired by God, inerrant in the original writings, and that they are supreme and final in authority, faith, and life.")
It does go to show that one should be careful about taking things out of context, because the risk is easily there for a misunderstanding. If someone hung something on one word without looking at the scripture as a whole for support, I'd be wary of what they had to say.
Message edited by author 2011-10-12 17:37:19. |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:43:54 PM · #172 |
Much of this thread seems to have degenerated into a "discussion" of if the Biblical standard of morality is relevant in modern society. I'll bite :
Biblically speaking premarital sex is a bad idea. Realistically speaking, premarital sex makes a guy happy for couple of minutes and potentially ruins a woman's life, as well as the life of the offspring that may result from the sex. "Adulterous thoughts" are a gateway drug to premarital sex. Hence lustful thoughts can conceivably (pun-intended) destroy at least two lives, while making some guy smile for a few minutes.
Aside from being Biblical, it seems like a pretty clear "modern society" choice to me...
... but that's just me |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:44:54 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
I strongly disagree that human nature is not to be trusted when it comes to proper action... |
You're not the only one. Only the basest ruck-in-the-mud philosophies condemn humanity for its humanity. It's not just insulting, it's antithetical to everything we are. Down with all this. |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:44:54 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If someone hung something on one word without looking at the scripture as a whole for support, I'd be wary of what they had to say. |
But, as long as they quote enough scripture at you you'll suspend your wariness and just believe whatever they are espousing? For me, this is one of the great dangers of religion (and TV too for that matter)... |
|
|
|
10/12/2011 05:49:16 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If someone hung something on one word without looking at the scripture as a whole for support, I'd be wary of what they had to say. |
But, as long as they quote enough scripture at you you'll suspend your wariness and just believe whatever they are espousing? For me, this is one of the great dangers of religion (and TV too for that matter)... |
Trolling.
It means I'd accept that scripture actually intends the point that is being made. If you have 30 verses that support your position, I'm more satisfied than if you have one word. |
|
