Does God Punish Feeling Lust?

[firedragon]

no, I said her + the sex with her.

Okay. Can you just put it in one sentence what is considered "adultery" according to this verse please??

 

[thomas t]

You do that.

Contradictions as listed in the Skeptics Annotated Bible

thank you for posting the link.
Let's do it that way: I show you that the first "contradictions" aren't contradictions, so it makes sense to assume the rest isn't either.
From the site (quotations in green):

Contradictions in the Bible
As numbered in the SAB book

1. The two creations
2. Who created heaven and earth?
3. Were plants created before or after humans?

... the site goes into more detail...

1.
The Book of Genesis begins with two contradictory creation accounts (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-3:24). In the first, God created humans (male and female) after he finished making all of the other animals. In the second, God made one man ("Adam") and then created all of the animals in order to find a helpmeet for Adam. God brought all of the animals to Adam, but none of them appealed to him. So God made a woman from one of Adam's ribs to serve as his helpmeet.

Here are two of the more obvious contradictions between the two creation accounts.[...]

I see it this way: Genesis 2:4 - 3:24 is either day one revisited or day 6 revisited.
Let's assume for a moment, it's day 6. Genesis 1 does not rule out that God never recreated any animals later. So there is no contradiction.
-------
2. Jesus or God?
In my opinion, this is like saying "this house is by architect x" and "the craftsmen built the house" are two contradictory statements. Well, they are not, obviously.
------
3. it's the same logic as in 1.
God can make 1. plants, 2. humans, 3. other plants.
No account rules out that God continues to create living organisms. Even today.

So no contradiction, and I assume the rest isn't contradictory, either.

 

[thomas t]

Okay. Can you just put it in one sentence what is considered "adultery" according to this verse please??

thank you for asking.
In my opinion, adultery according to this verse means: wanting to have the woman + the sex with her, and this feeling arises regardless of how she feels.

That verse did not mention that the woman wanted to have the man, too.

 

[Scott C.]

I think that lust is totally fine. Even for God. He created it, I think.

* it is the purpose of the channel to address religion "because of the people who believe in God." The author does not " want them to believe in a fantasy" as he says.

God created the sex drive. Then he said we need to control when and how we use it. He also said don't lust. I think somewhere we cross the line from the God given impulse and accompanying thoughts about sex to an uncontrolled and undisciplined dwelling on sex. That's when it becomes lust and a sin I believe.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I'd like to discuss

Spoiler

another prominent video

promoting atheism.

Last time, many atheists said that atheism didn't need a prophet or a leader in the way Christianity does.
Many atheists disagreed with the videos from that channel.

Nevertheless some agreed.
Taking into accoung the overwhelming success of the video, it has some 4.2 million clicks and as many as 50,000 likes, I'd like to discuss it here.
The likes can't stem from Christians, I think. *

At minute 2:30, the video says that God convicts "people for feeling [what lust feels like]".
I doubt it.
I think that lust is totally fine. Even for God. He created it, I think.

* it is the purpose of the channel to address religion "because of the people who believe in God." The author does not " want them to believe in a fantasy" as he says.

I didn't watch the video but I will say this. Earlier in my life I excused acting on lust as not impacting my integrity because so many people do it and seem to be fine. I regret that decision.

 

[ppp]

I didn't watch the video but I will say this. Earlier in my life I excused acting on lust as not impacting my integrity because so many people do it and seem to be fine. I regret that decision.

I didn't need an excuse. I only regret the times that I had a willing partner and did not act on my lust.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I didn't need an excuse. I only regret the times that I had a willing partner and did not act on my lust.

I don't know what to say; just be aware that many religions are against this.

 

[ppp]

I don't know what to say; just be aware that many religions are against this.

Well, sure. I am perfectly aware of that. But there are lot of religions against various forms of ethnic mixing, women holding power over men, women keeping their clitorises, gays marrying, scientific discoveries that conflict with religious doctrine, etc. The mere fact that "many" religions are against something is a terrible reason to go along with them.

 

[McBell]

that's Catholic teaching. I often say to other Christians: Bible only please.
If you can cite Bible for your claims then it may count as Christian teaching, ok?
To the best of my knowledge, the Catholics allow for extra-biblical teaching.

I'm not an anti-Catholic, though. It's just that they don't promote the principle of Bible alone determining sound theology.

Which shows you have moved the goalposts...
If you are not talking about "Christian" views but instead "Biblical" views, you should be up front and honest about it from the beginning.,

 

[robocop (actually)]

Well, sure. I am perfectly aware of that. But there are lot of religions against various forms of ethnic mixing, women holding power over men, women keeping their clitorises, gays marrying, scientific discoveries that conflict with religious doctrine, etc. The mere fact that "many" religions are against something is a terrible reason to go along with them.

In America at least, religions should be allowed to compete in the public sphere.

 

[ppp]

In America at least, religions should be allowed to compete in the public sphere.

How exactly is my refusing to follow the immoral doctrines of assorted religions preventing religions from competing in the public sphere? Or are you just making random statements?

 

[robocop (actually)]

How exactly is my refusing to follow the immoral doctrines of assorted religions preventing religions from competing in the public sphere? Or are you just making random statements?

What I'm saying is, at least religions compete. You may not like x about religion y, and other people won't also. They would much rather go to religion z where they can believe w. So what I'm saying is, if you don't like things about a religion, it's the same with other people, and people can choose or not choose religions that they want.

 

[ppp]

What I'm saying is, at least religions compete. You may not like x about religion y, and other people won't also. They would much rather go to religion z where they can believe w. So what I'm saying is, if you don't like things about a religion, it's the same with other people, and people can choose or not choose religions that they want.

It is obvious that assorted people do and don't like different things about various religions. I don't see what point you are trying to get at. It seems like you are saying that morality is all relative, and that there are actually no moral or immoral actions. If that is what you mean, I don't agree.

 

[robocop (actually)]

It is obvious that assorted people do and don't like different things about various religions. I don't see what point you are trying to get at. It seems like you are saying that morality is all relative, and that there are actually no moral or immoral actions. If that is what you mean, I don't agree.

I think you misunderstood me again. All I'm saying is that religions compete.

 

[ppp]

I think you misunderstood me again. All I'm saying is that religions compete.

Water is wet.

 

[thomas t]

He also said don't lust.

according to you.
God didn't say don't lust - meaning sexual lust.

 

[thomas t]

Which shows you have moved the goalposts...
If you are not talking about "Christian" views but instead "Biblical" views, you should be up front and honest about it from the beginning.,

I wasn't dishonest.
Everyone is invited to discuss traditional Christian views here of course.
In discussion, I may point out that not everything you find in Catholicism or in Lutheranian, or Orthodox churches is in fact Biblical. That's my opinion.

 

[McBell]

I wasn't dishonest.
Everyone is invited to discuss traditional Christian views here of course.
In discussion, I may point out that not everything you find in Catholicism or in Lutheranian, or Orthodox churches is in fact Biblical. That's my opinion.

And yet you did not mention the Bible once in your OP...

Interesting that you changed it from Christian to "Bible only".
Especially given that "Bible only" is not Biblical.

But that is a topic for a separate thread.

 

[thomas t]

And yet you did not mention the Bible once in your OP...

well yes, as I admitted in #35 already.

Interesting that you changed it from Christian to "Bible only".

I didn't change the discussion from Christian to "Bible only". I say that I personally prefer Bible only for good reasons. Bible should be the arbiter of Christian faith, I think, but as a matter of fact many Christians think otherwise.

 

[firedragon]

thank you for asking.
In my opinion, adultery according to this verse means: wanting to have the woman + the sex with her, and this feeling arises regardless of how she feels.

That verse did not mention that the woman wanted to have the man, too.

I didnt say that. But since I asked twice brother, and your answer is not at all relevant I will refrain from anything further.

Thank you very much though. You seem like a good person. Cheers.