[Tauntenue]

I want to talk a little about sexual irresponsibility. Yesterday, on another thread, I put this out: “I’m not married, but it seems that sex is another thing that man corrupts, in addition to the gift of foods (our gluttony). Rape, abortion, and infidelity are but 3 examples of man’s selfish sexuality. We have a way of degrading God’s ‘gifts,’ as you say.” (Someone else had previously referred to the food-gluttony part.)

Then someone wrote, “Sexual fidelity is a man-made construct.” Then someone responded, “What about the 10 Commandments, for those of us who believe?”

That was okay, but I add here that it also applies to all unbelievers as well as believers.

Then these words came up: “In Judeo-Christian societies (and in ancient Rome as well) women were/are expected to be innocent, pure, and faithful, while men are tacitly allowed to sleep around, so long as they don't get caught.”

Someone wrote—"I guess I have never developed confidence to test the ‘Don't get caught’ part. If I got it wrong, I'd be dead in a matter of hours. Never mess with a tough little Southern girl.”

I responded, “Concerning the ‘men’ part, how do you explain the Christian teaching in Matthew 5:32? It doesn't seem to agree with what you just wrote. See also 1 Corinthians 6:9.”

To this, I received these words—“Matthew 5:32 goes proves my point: a man could divorce his wife for adultery, but not the other way round. And even in Jesus' mind, divorcing your wife was acceptable if she was unfaithful to you.”

I have various issues with parts of the above, but, since it’s somewhat off-topic from the thread heading, I have decided to start a new thread. The title I have selected, however, needs some explanation.

It grows out of the comment made 4 paragraphs above—about not getting caught. It seems that the idea of sexual looseness and not getting caught is unwisely cavalier.

I don’t know how many of you watched Tim Tebow play football last Saturday, but he apparently is an extremely intelligent football player—jumping passes, etc. Did you see what was written under his eyes? It was Hebrews 12:1-2. The man must be a Christian, for the passage talks about fixing our eyes on Jesus. I suspect that what Jesus says about sex, therefore, is very important to Tim Tebow, but others seem to think Jesus’ words have little or no merit.

I bring Joni Eareckson Tada into the other part of the title because she’s sort of on the other end of the spectrum. Whereas Tim Tebow is physically on top of life, Joni herself is about as low as it gets. Yet both Tim and Joni have agreement in respecting the teachings of Jesus. My point is that if Jesus can touch people on both ends of the physical spectrum, maybe it would be good for people in between not to be too cavalier about what Jesus had to say.

Now let me return specifically to comments I quoted above. Is it really wise for the person, who wrote about not getting caught, to think lightly of Jesus’ words? Let me explain.

Probably everyone here would admit that Jesus has made quite an impact on world culture. Go to art museums; read literature; put the word, Jesus, into Google. Whether you agree with Jesus, you probably will have to admit that not many people have made more impact on the world than Jesus. (In fact, I cannot think of even a close second. George Washington?)

Now, Jesus taught that someday future, he is going to raise everyone who has ever lived on this planet from death to appear before him in judgment. Now if his words are true, then the idea of not getting caught is silly. We all will get caught. The person who wrote about not getting caught must think Jesus was either delusional or a liar—either that—or that he never existed.

All three of these possibilities seem unwise, however. Why? Even unbelievers agree that the teachings of Jesus are some of the most exalted teachings found anywhere on earth. If Jesus is a liar, then he is not a moral person. Why should Tim or Joni listen to a liar?

Delusional? I’m sure there are people who hope Jesus was delusional, but neither Tim nor Joni thinks he is. Our first president did not believe Jesus was delusional, and neither do many, many other great people.

A person is free to call Jesus delusional (we live in a free country), but what will they do if they discover that Jesus was speaking truth and that they must stand before him—having judged him delusional (or a fraud)? Are Tim and Joni also delusional? Could it be that the peace they both must have with Jesus can be had by others by humbling themselves before him and trusting in his deed and words?

The other person seems to be confused about Jesus on two counts. He wrote-- “Matthew 5:32 goes proves my point: a man could divorce his wife for adultery, but not the other way round.”

It’s the “not the other way round” part that bothers me, for Jesus, in Mark 10:11f, said--"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." In other words, Jesus did speak to “the other way around,” and the original judgment of “not” is false.

The other thing that was said was “And even in Jesus' mind, divorcing your wife was acceptable if she was unfaithful to you,” but Jesus said that Moses allowed it. Jesus stressed that this was not the original intent—in the beginning. Jesus affirmed two-way marital fidelity, and he was also extremely respectful of women—even towards an apparent adulteress who had had five husbands (John 4).

[Alliopeti]

Mating is the term most often used to refer to sexual intercourse between animals other than humans; for most, mating occurs at the point of estrus (the most fertile period of time in the female's reproductive cycle),[8][9] which increases the chances of successful impregnation. However, bonobos,[10] dolphins,[11] and chimpanzees are known to engage in sexual intercourse even when the female is not in estrus, and to engage in sex acts with same-sex partners.[12] In most instances, humans have sex primarily for pleasure.[13] This behavior in the above mentioned animals is also presumed to be for pleasure,[14] which in turn strengthens social bonds.



Dolphins are sinners then?

They are aware of their surroundings and decisions and can teach other dolphins this behaivor.


Cheating is bad.

Sexual desire is not when there isn't any malice or bad intentions.

[97dYA9L3]

I don’t know how many of you watched Tim Tebow play football last Saturday, but he apparently is an extremely intelligent football player—jumping passes, etc. Did you see what was written under his eyes? It was Hebrews 12:1-2. The man must be a Christian,

That's a bad assumption; if I paint "Matthew 6:6" (one of my favorite passages) on my ass it doesn't make me a Christian.

Probably everyone here would admit that Jesus has made quite an impact on world culture. Go to art museums; read literature; put the word, Jesus, into Google. Whether you agree with Jesus, you probably will have to admit that not many people have made more impact on the world than Jesus. (In fact, I cannot think of even a close second. George Washington?) Buddha. Mohamed. If you go by which book people say most influenced their lives, Atlas Shrugged always comes in second to the Bible.

If you're talking about number of people influenced by their teachings, Confucius has Jesus beat.

Now, Jesus taught that someday future, he is going to raise everyone who has ever lived on this planet from death to appear before him in judgment. You're conflating Jesus and God again.




All three of these possibilities seem unwise, however. Why? Even unbelievers agree that the teachings of Jesus are some of the most exalted teachings found anywhere on earth. [citation needed]

Jesus was one of the most profound teachers/philosophers, but sadly not a single Christian sect actually follows his teachings, as the philosophy he laid out is far too difficult for all but a few.

Christianity, as practiced by all but a few, is based on Jesus' role as Jewish scholar, his interpretations of the Old Testament (Torah) and on the extremely questionable teachings of Paul after Jesus' death.

The other person seems to be confused about Jesus on two counts. He wrote-- “Matthew 5:32 goes proves my point: a man could divorce his wife for adultery, but not the other way round.” If you've evidence that it was just as easy for a Jewish woman to divorce her husband as it was for a husband to divorce his wife in Judea in the 1st century BC I'd love ot see it.

It’s the “not the other way round” part that bothers me, for Jesus, in Mark 10:11f, said--"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." In other words, Jesus did speak to “the other way around,” and the original judgment of “not” is false. No, that was historical context I was adding to the discussion. The Bible does not exist in a vacuum. If you believe that Jesus was a real historical person who who walked this Earth, then you need to understand the world he lived in and the reasons why he said what he said.

In the passage from Matthew, we see Jesus as rabbi, interpreting the law. Were he playing the role of Jesus as teacher, one would expect him to say that even the man whose wife had cuckolded him should forgive her rather than divorcing her.

[quote[The other thing that was said was “And even in Jesus' mind, divorcing your wife was acceptable if she was unfaithful to you,” but Jesus said that Moses allowed it. Jesus stressed that this was not the original intent—in the beginning. Jesus affirmed two-way marital fidelity, and he was also extremely respectful of women—even towards an apparent adulteress who had had five husbands (John 4).[/QUOTE]

We don't know that she's an adultress. All we know is that Jesus says that she has had five husbands. What happened to said husbands (if they were indeed) isn't discussed. She could well have been widowed four or five times; it wasn't uncommon in the ancient world.

The interesting questions to raise about that passage are: why does she deny that her husband isn't her husband and why does Jesus agree that he isn't?

One of the fascinating things about the Biblical Jesus is that he is not at all concerned with anything or anyone outside of the Jewish realm. I know that people point to the passages about the Samaritans and say that they prove that Jesus meant his religion for all, but that ignores the fact that the Samaritans are a Semitic people and the reason the Jews would have nothing to do with them had to do with the fact that they practice different forms of the same religion. (Not unlike the schisms between Protestant and Catholics or Catholics and Orthodox, which have played out over the last 1500 years).

[MpNelQTU]

Mr. Morley, you wrote, “All we know is that Jesus says that she has had five husbands. What happened to said husbands (if they were indeed) isn't discussed.”

But “All” that we know is more than what you wrote, for in verses 17 and 18 we read, “ Jesus said to her, ‘You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.'”

Did you forget about the last part of Jesus’ words?

[h4z1XBI7]

Did you forget about the last part of Jesus’ words?

No, I was taking that into account. Jesus says that she's had five husbands, but we don't know if they're serial or in parallel (did she have five in a row or five at the same time?). Then he says that her obviously lie -that she doesn't have a husband- is true. But he doesn't give us a reason.

You've obviously got an interpretation of this passage in mind, but the text in this case is rather mysterious and confusing. I'm half-tempted to say that somethings been left out.

[shiciapsisy]

Mr. Morley, you said that you did not forget about the last part of Jesus’ words, but you seem to have overlooked what Jesus actually said. Your following words, once again, seem to have left out an import part. Here are your recent words: “No, I was taking that into account. Jesus says that she's had five husbands, but we don't know if they're serial or in parallel (did she have five in a row or five at the same time?). Then he says that her obviously lie -that she doesn't have a husband- is true. But he doesn't give us a reason.”

Yes he did give a reason, “the man you now have is not your husband. “ She was living with a man she was not married to. In other words, she was in sexual sin. Now, he did not zap her. He actually offered her salvation (“living water”). She even got salvation from Jesus. He was loving her even as he pointed out sin in her life. He knew he was eventually going to the cross to save her from her sexual sin, and he also knew he was going to cover over her spiritual nakedness with his perfect robe of righteousness. She was so thankful that she immediately became an evangelist to her home town (see the Gospel of John, chapter 4).

No, I was taking that into account. Jesus says that she's had five husbands, but we don't know if they're serial or in parallel (did she have five in a row or five at the same time?). Then he says that her obviously lie -that she doesn't have a husband- is true. But he doesn't give us a reason.

You've obviously got an interpretation of this passage in mind, but the text in this case is rather mysterious and confusing. I'm half-tempted to say that somethings been left out.

[evalayCap]

Yes he did give a reason, “the man you now have is not your husband. “ She was living with a man she was not married to.

That is an assumption on your part, not borne out by the text.

[refsherne]

I love ancient book fights....

[9rCR9hWL]

It's mostly this

Never forget: YouTube - Bea Arthur History of the World Part I

[tropicana]

I don’t know how many of you watched Tim Tebow play football last Saturday, but he apparently is an extremely intelligent football player—jumping passes, etc. Did you see what was written under his eyes? It was Hebrews 12:1-2. The man must be a Christian, for the passage talks about fixing our eyes on Jesus. I suspect that what Jesus says about sex, therefore, is very important to Tim Tebow, but others seem to think Jesus’ words have little or no merit.

Great....an athlete thinks what Jeebus has to say about sex is important? So I suppose being a gifted athlete puts one in a position of moral authority? I wonder what Tiger Woods has to say about Jeebus and fidelity? Most athletes I know will fu¢k just about anything that moves. If you look to athletes for examples on how to live your life, you're going to wind up all messed up. Think O.J. Simpson or Rae Carruth or Jim Dunaway. Personally, I try to live my life like the great Doc Ellis.

[mynaflzak]

Great....an athlete thinks what Jeebus has to say about sex is important? So I suppose being a gifted athlete puts one in a position of moral authority?

It's yet another Argument by Authority by Paul Humber (AKA "Seth"). He did that sort of thing all the time in his Creationism threads: Expert X believes Y, therefore Y is true, even if Y is completely irrelevant to X's expertise.

[Gedominew]

You're conflating Jesus and God again.

Actually, Mr Morley, since Jesus is but an aspect (or avatar) of God in the theology of the Holy Trinity, this refutation is just as much bull$h!t as one of Humber's "proofs" of creation science. God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same being, just viewed three different ways. Or to put it simply: Jesus is God.

[AntonayPina]

Actually, Mr Morley, since Jesus is but an aspect (or avatar) of God in the theology of the Holy Trinity, this refutation is just as much bull$h!t as one of Humber's "proofs" of creation science. God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same being, just viewed three different ways. Or to put it simply: Jesus is God.

That's Catholic doctrine and it is accepted by other sects, but it's not a universal truth.

[8IhGpvH0]

Or to put it simply: Jesus is God.

In human flesh--my only hope for salvation?

[arriftell]

“Tebow Super Bowl Ad Stirs Abortion Uproar” is the title of a CBS report of yesterday, Jan. 26, 2010 (Tebow Super Bowl Ad Stirs Abortion Uproar - CBS News).

It quotes Tim Tebow’s words: "I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe," Tebow said. "I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."

Why should so-called “pro-choice” women object to Tim’s mother choosing to keep her son? Is it possible that they are not really even “pro-choice”?

[ErnestTU]

Why should so-called “pro-choice” women object to Tim’s mother choosing to keep her son? Is it possible that they are not really even “pro-choice”?

Paul... why do you lie? They are not, in any way, objecting to Tim's mother choosing to keep her son... that is something you've just made up.

"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year - an event designed to bring Americans together" THAT is why they object Paul, not because of that disgusting LIE you've just come out with.

[GfBTWMmV]

Paul... why do you lie? They are not, in any way, objecting to Tim's mother choosing to keep her son... that is something you've just made up. THAT is why they object Paul, not because of that disgusting LIE you've just come out with.

Calling me a liar does not make it so, Craz. Plus, I’m getting numb to it.

There have been an estimated 50 million abortions in America since 1973. If 6 million under Hitler was wrong, where is the outcry in America about the 50 million Americans?

Taking a stand for life irritates people who want to make money by killing. There is forgiveness, even for the sin of abortion, at the foot of the cross, however. I recommend finding that healing in Jesus.

Imagine the arrogance of Mary—even thinking that she should have the right to abort the Son of God—in her womb! Hitler was evil. Sanger imbibed in the same philosophy of evolutionary fitness, and Planned Parenthood sheds innocent blood.

[Ccddfergt]

Calling me a liar does not make it so, Craz.

Nope, just like you calling yourself a Christian does not make you one.

You're a liar because you tell lies, not because someone labeled you as such.

[dhYTvlAv]

I see humber's picking up where "Sockpuppet Seth" left off. What does THAT tell you?

[CamVideoQl]

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote a letter to Clarence Gamble on October 19, 1939: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Many years prior, Sanger said, "Whether or not the white races will be ultimately wiped off the face of the earth depends, to my mind, largely upon the conduct and behavior of the white people themselves. (Applause.)"

Hitler also was not attracted to the “Negro population”, and did something about eliminating the less “desirables.” Sanger’s organization also seems intent on eliminating the less desirables.

The Lord Jesus spoke about those who come to destroy and kill. He said He came to bring life. He also told His followers to defend the “least of these.”