Bible: Lust is a sin, but be fruitful and multiply.

[Bloodblister Bob]

Anybody else see a catch-22 here?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. Lust isn't a sin

when you are married to the fruit producer.

[tocqueville]

3. reminds me of a young farmer who used to make love to a big apple tree

using the holes in the bark. One day his father told him that he should meet a real woman and gave him money to visit the local brothel.

The young farmer did as told and went there, picked up a girl and went up to the room. So when girl started to undress (she was new and a bit shy) she turned her back on him. She then received a big kick in the butt...

Angry she turned towards him and asked him, why do you do that ? Are you some kind of a pervert ?

I'm sorry, answered the farmer, it's that I am so used to get rid of the squirrels first...

[dretceterini]

5. yes, it is, according to fundamentalists

if he produces "fruit"

[Arugula Latte]

2. The Bible is a mishmash of stories, legends, myths compiled over time

It's a mass of contradictions. People who take it literally must have to twist their minds into pretzels ...

My favorite conundrum is how there was originally one male and one female human who subsequently had two sons ... and the begatting began. Yer mama is also yer gramma, boy!

BTW, welcome to DU! :hi: :toast:

[CatholicEdHead]

13. These are parables for a reason

so in the early communities the people could understand them. They can understand parables which use real life examples.

[Sam1]

31. Correct editing

and proper emphasis make it possible to be literal with out suffering pretzelitis.

[flamin lib]

4. I'm told that God can do anything,

but can (s)he make a rock so big that he can't lift it?

[More Than A Feeling]

15. Yes he can and here is how: (apologies to those who have heard this)

suppose a man is walking down a road, and comes to a fork. He must stay on the path and go right or left. God wants him to go left. So God creates a rock so big that the man cannot lift it or go around it on the right fork, so that he is forced to go left.

God could lift this rock, but he can't if he wants to make the man go left.

Voila, a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it!

[CarbonDate]

21. That's not a "rock so heavy he can't lift it"....

The requirement is that he cannot lift it because of its weight, not because of some contrived exterior circumstance.

The question is meant to demonstrate the logical impossibility of omnipotence.

[Brentos]

26. The correct answer is "Yes"

Of course God can create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it, because he is all powerful. And, since He is all-powerful, He can lift it.

It is the same as Jesus is 100% mankind and 100% God.

It is the same as light is a particle and a wave (okay, maybe I'm stretching on this one) :-)

God does not equal logic. You can logically disprove God. You can logically disprove most anything. I can't even prove I exist, "I think, therefore I believe I exist". That's about as far as I can take true proof. Everything else is relying on my trust and belief of my senses, which I can prove to anyone that every one of our senses can be and is fooled (and wrong) quite often. If we can't rely on our senses, what can we rely on?

I believe in God, I believe (or trust, if you don't wish a loaded term) in the sciences and evolution.

Disclaimer: I am offering this as explanation based on the Bible and some extra-biblical sources (including my own brain). This is not an attack nor blind defense of anything. It is not intended to insult, nor to accept insult, just to continue discussions with those truly interested, not those who wish to attack or use Christianity to attack.

[eyl]

29. It's not a logical impossibility

it's a semantical impossibility. It's like asking whether God can make something which is both a cube and a sphere.

In a universe containing an unstoppable force (whether God or something else), there cannot be - by definition - an object that force cannot move.

Saying that omnipotence requires God to be capable of creating a rock he can't move is a word game, nothing more.

[donco6]

6. Well, just to be fair.

The Bible does make a distinction between lust and "be fruitful." Lust is seen more as coveting - wanting something that isn't yours (a neighbor's wife for example). "Be fruitful" is a command to the coupled (Adam and Eve). Lust is never used to refer to a man's desire for his own wife, only for other people's wives or daughters - even for angels.

The Bible doesn't really say sex is bad, but - like with Islam - women are seen as such a threat to sin that sexuality and sexual expression is seen as temptation.

And, no, I'm not a Christian at all.

[arwalden]

7. Whew!

<< And, no, I'm not a Christian at all. >>

You had me worried there for a second! :hi:

[donco6]

9. I've learned!

You've got to spell that out or people will automatically think you're some fundie nutcase.

Though I used to be years ago, I no longer make any claims to any version of Christianity whatsoever.

Maybe I need a 12 step group? :)

[Bloodblister Bob]

12. Jesus on lust...

"I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
-- Matthew 5:28

This making of natural thoughts and urges into something sinful is sick, I think.

[donco6]

14. One more time . . .

And I'm not really defending the Bible, because there's plenty of goofy crap in there, but in this particular passage, Jesus is trying to get the Pharisees to see themselves as "less than perfect." They had the idea that if they worked hard enough, prayed loud enough, gave big donations with loud gongs and trumpets, they would be seen favorably by God and earn their way to heaven. They had nitpicky laws for EVERYTHING, down to straining their wine for fear of accidentally eating a forbidden gnat, and yet they would "swallow the camel" of pride and arrogance and not recognizing good when they saw it. Jesus was just saying that sin isn't just breaking one of their silly laws, it was about the heart, and what was in it.

Look, if you want to really rag on the Bible, I think the passages about killing all your enemies - women and children and livestock included - would make a better place to start. Or sacrificing your children because you made an oath on their heads - that's another good one. Or condemning your decendants to the 10th generation for some sin or another. There a lot of other nutball stuff to go after. I think the Beatitudes are a tough one to start with.

[Nikia]

17. That's my take on it

You are supposed to want your spouse. You aren't supposed to want other people's spouses.

[kweerwolf]

8. Being 'fruitful' is OK ...

... but you just better not enjoy it! :D

[Az]

10. You are not supposed to enjoy it

Procreation only. That is the only purpose of sex. If you do it recreationally you have given into lust.

[McKenzie]

11. ummm...were it not for lust...

some of us might not be here.

[FM Arouet666]

16. Your not supposed to enjoy sex.

That's why gawd made it so damn fun..... :evilgrin:

[bertha katzenengel]

18. No, I don't see any catch 22.

Sex outside marriage -- i.e., lust -- is sinful.

Sex within marriage is a sacrament and is the only reproductive act that's blessed by god. That's why "illegitimate" children are bastards - they're cursed by god.

Strange things, these myriad interpretations of Christianity.

[Brentos]

19. The point of it all...

The point of Lust being a sin, and all of the Levitical Laws and such was to prove a point: Mankind cannot be sin free. We are born into a corrupt world of sin, and only through the sinless can we be forgiven and free. That is the story behind all of that. So yes, lust is a sin, lying is a sin, gay sex is a sin, bestiality is a sin, charging interest is a sin, leaving mold on your walls is a sin (well, at least "unclean" in the religious sense).

The other point is all sin is equal. Sin = death. So, all of the previous sins are the same, Christian moralists who claim to be superior because they don't do some of those sins are sin-ing even more, as they are hypocritical liars (or delusional). The point Jesus was making is that all humans are sinners; therefore a scapegoat is required to release that sin. A normal scapegoat only eliminates sin from before, and mankind will sin again. Therefore, a scapegoat of all time is needed: The Christ. That is the story behind it all. I wish many Christians would stop giving us a bad name by harping on one sin (homosexual sex, for example) yet not harping on other sins (lying, interest, cheating, etc.). Hypocrites; those. If people understood this, Christians would get along better with each other and with non-Christians. Who are we to judge? Definitely not us hypocrites!

[CarbonDate]

22. Why is a scapegoat needed?

And how does sacrificing a goat absolve one of crimes? If Jesus was an all-time, good to go scapegoat, then is damnation possible for Christians? If I "reject Jesus", but sacrifice a goat just before I die, will I be absolved of my sin and go to Heaven?

[Az]

23. Universalists

Believed that Jesus died for everyone's sins. Period. They split from the mainstream church doctrine a long time ago. They believed that Jesus' sacrifice was essentialy the end of Hell. All mercifull means all mercifull.

[Brentos]

25. Good questions!

And how does sacrificing a goat absolve one of crimes? If Jesus was an all-time, good to go scapegoat, then is damnation possible for Christians? If I "reject Jesus", but sacrifice a goat just before I die, will I be absolved of my sin and go to Heaven?

I'll start with the middle question first. Yes, damnation is possible for Christians if they deny God and turn from Him. This is the one unforgivable sin. The beauty of Christianity (which really annoys the far right) is that it is the easiest religion, as the only tenant is belief in Jesus (or God) as your savior. If you believe he died for your sins, and accept that, then you are saved. The rest is about how you should run your life if you truly love your creator. The flip side (my belief based on studies) is that the only way to be damned is to deny God. Which to me means that the only way to deny something is to first understand it. So, yes, I tend to believe those that have never heard of God or felt God in there hearts are not condemned to Hell. In fact, it is easier for a Christian to be damned then a non Christian...weird!

Sacrificing the scapegoat won't help now post-Christ (although maybe for Jews?). The scapegoat ritual, was not an altar sacrifice, it was a laying on the hands, transference of guilt (while another goat was sacrificed) onto the scapegoat, which was then set free out of the camp (the holy area) to take the sins away, and then would theoretically be probably eaten by Azazel (or Satan, or demons, or non-God).

How does the sacrifice work? The short (really abbreviated) answer is that all life is God's (since he created it). Blood = Life. Non-God = Sin. Sin = Death. Based on God's laws (lessons) it is impossible to live without sin, therefore we are all condemned to death. God, though loving us, gave us an out. God taught us that it is possible to transfer sin through blood offering (physically in mans spiritual infancy) and then later through spiritual offering (believing in Jesus' sacrifice, who became the final physical sacrifice.). The scapegoat began to bridge the thinking between physical transference and spiritual transference (it was a once a year sacrifice the absolve the entire people).

Disclaimer: I am offering this as explanation based on the Bible and some extra-biblical sources (including my own brain). This is not an attack nor blind defense of anything. It is not intended to insult, nor to accept insult, just to continue discussions with those truly interested, not those who wish to attack or use Christianity to attack.

[HockeyMom]

20. Not according to the Fundies

because if you use birth control IN marriage, your wife becomes no better than a harlot. You are lusting after her in the same way, not as in God's way for husband and wife to "be open" to creating a new life which is the purpose of sex. They say you are going against God's will for marriage in denying the conception of a baby.

Just quoting what they are saying. See they don't believe in birth control in marriage either.

[NMMNG]

24. The fundies just don't believe in fun

They should change their name really--there is no fun in FUNdamentalism.

Now, if gawd didn't want people to enjoy sex, why the heck did he make it feel so darn good?

[Rabrrrrrr]

27. Huh?!

The two are utterly unrelated.

Might as well say "Bible: Murder is a sin, but sell all you own and give it to the poor"

Lust and "being fruitful and multiplying" have as much to do with one another as murder and giving everything to the poor.

I'm not sure why you feel that yours is a really bitchin' argument.

[madeline_con]

28. No. Don't lust, procreate!

Do it like bunnies if'n yore havin' yunguns!

[jbnow]

30. Sex is dirty

save it for someone you love?

It does seem a mixed message.