Not at all... her answr jus needed clarifyin.!!!
"we" wont... that woud be a sin.!!!
No... but the mos wonderful thang about beleifs is... they dont need no stinkin evidence.!!!
Did Jesus Suffer Enough?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
Not at all... her answr jus needed clarifyin.!!!
"we" wont... that woud be a sin.!!!
No... but the mos wonderful thang about beleifs is... they dont need no stinkin evidence.!!!
You mean like the Bible did, I guess. Like 'the Bible is true', but it needs clarifyin'. OK, that works for me.
I am taking this to mean that aesthetic qualities determine if something is a sin, rather than moral considerations.
Hard to get through a day working with only what's got evidence, let alone fancy ass enough evidence to convince others.
Unless you are simply referring to scat.
no, i'm sure i'm 87 kinds of wrong, but that's no reason not to try.
does that mean it's ok to murder, citing the excuse that you're fallen and jesus is going to fix it all someday? no, that's not how it works. it is relevant when sin is the disease, and while religion may help to treat the symptoms, christ is the cure.
their lust.
because while i don't work in some sleazy strip joint encouraging lustful men, i do like to go swimming and go to the beach.
"judge ye not lest ye be judged" and the repeated statement that all of us fall way short of the glory of god, that we're all sinners, and none of us are good, is from the bible. so basically it says that we're all stupid and evil because we're sinners.
that's so funny. it just is.
i don't think it's BS. i actually think it's something to aspire to.
just to clarify about the 144,000...those are the last that shall be first. that is, those who have the seal of god in the very last days of this age, and will be the first to enter the kingdom in the first 1000 years of the new age. after that, the first that shall be last will be brought in as well.
Well thers no evidence that its true... so is that good enuff to convince you to beleive in reincarnation like Lori does.???
sidestepping the issue.
Of course I know that. That was my point. So you bring up this absolving issue and it implies that dressing in certain ways is something that might be absolved. But you don't say this. You don't say how it relates the way you dress as opposed to what is in the Bible.
It comes off like you want to imply something, but not actually say it
OR
things just pop into your mind so you write them even though they are not connected.
This has nothing to do with the issue. If it does, then it means that you consider your attire sinful. But clearly you don't.
One can be sleazy and encourage lust in just about any attire. In Timothy it talks about the clothes, not how the person acts. It seems obvious you don't think this part of the Bible applies to you, but you don't say this, you respond as if other issues are on the table.
Ah, but when I said that most Christians would disagree with you on the clothing issue, you said they were stupid and evil. IOW you explained your difference of opinion with them by labeling them evil and stupid. You judged them.
Sure parts of the Bible are funny.
you aspire not to feel lust. How sad, but that's your choice of course. If you are married, have you told your husband?
yeah, i think that many people confuse lust with an appreciation. imo, lust is a degradation. i have no idea what the definition is in our dictionary, but the way i see it, lust does not take a whole human being into account. nor does it take into account whether it is appropriate or not to have a sexual desire for someone. iow, i think we can all agree that it's a bad idea to have sex with anyone and everyone you find physically attractive, and it's a bad idea to completely ignore any and all other attributes of that person. so my question is, why think about people in those terms, if those terms are not correct?
taking myself as an example, i have absolutely no problem at all, looking at a man, who is naked and very beautiful looking, and having no desire to have sex with him.
why? because imo, physical beauty is not something to base a sexual desire on.
i mean, it can be a factor. for example, many times a person's physical appearance is an indicator of how healthy they are on the inside, that is mentally and emotionally, perhaps spiritually. but sometimes it's not. and you can't tell just by looking at someone. you actually have to get to know the whole person.
Unlike som... Lori seems interested in avoidin HELL.!!!
Matt. v. 28
"Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
honestly, it just doesn't make sense to me to be lustful. i think it's irrational.
So when you say Jesus could look at a naked person all day without feeling lust, you don't mean he wouldn't feel like having loving sex? Right. Like he can and did and would feel sexual attraction to adult women, but it would be part of a full attraction for a woman.
So now I understand, pretty much, how you are defining lust. But sexual attraction is OK, then. And it would not disturb you to find out that Jesus got and gets sexually attracted to women he loves?
She's not a lesbian, I don't think, so I can't see how this applies.
right. actually i'm inclined to believe that jesus had sex with mary magdalene.
well wait a minute...whoa. not that he "loves", because he loves everyone, just as we should. but whom he wishes to mate with for good reasons (marry).
Last edited:
If lust is irrational... then i admit i got married for irrational reasons
...but it turned out oK
If lust is irrational... then i admit i got married for irrational reasons
...but it turned out oK
i'm glad it turned out ok. you're a lucky man.
it is not sidestepping the issue. the issue is this...i am a sinner, and i tried, and i accomplished, so i have no reason to think that other people can't do this as well.
and instead of saying "i'm a lustful man, so every woman around me has to wear a tent, while i continue to cover myself and all of them in shame", they can say, "i'm going to change my mind, because it is stupid and evil to be lustful", and do that.
does it really go into detail about what i'm supposed to be wearing exactly? or is it relative? i mean, that pic is very modest compared to some pics i've seen, and that underwear is immodest compared to a tent. :shrug:
i think it comes down to my intentions, which i've stated for the most part. so am i trying to offend? no. am i trying to incite lust? no. quite the opposite actually. i'm trying to make a point to some, to get over it, because it is stupid and wrong.
you're right. something else is on the table. firstly, can we agree on one thing? can we agree that religion is not the answer? religion is not the fix? i think that's pretty obvious, don't you?
secondly, i've mentioned that something spiritually weird happened to me several years ago. and that experience kind of sucked me into another world that i didn't know existed prior (metaphorically speaking), and that world is the beginnings of the kingdom. now i know that jesus and others have been working on this a long time, and people have been praying for it a long time, but i'm talking about some real logistical stuff that's going on in this world right now in preparation. since it happened, i have reason to believe that our time in this age is very, very short, so i am preparing myself to live in a world where sin does not exist and so religion is obsolete. the law will be fulfilled in all of us genetically, and communion with the lawmaker restored. i can't help but think it's important for others to explore this, and get themselves ready, if they truly want to be a part of the kingdom of christ.
i'm just paraphrasing scripture.
i would bet my husband is grateful i don't look at men that way. i think my husband is very handsome, but that's not why i want to have sex with him.
I get the strong impression that Lori does not understand male sexuality. She says she can look at a beautiful naked guy and not feel lust. Fine. Not a problem.
But the converse does not apply. A normal, red blooded, heterosexual guy looking at a naked beautiful woman will automatically feel lust. His heart beat will increase, his blood pressure will rise, his breathing speeds up, and he wants her.
Female sexuality is slower to be aroused than male. It often takes a lot of tactile stimulating, rather than visual. So sure, Lori can look on naked male beauty without arousal. However, to expect the male equivalent is just plain unrealistic.
Clueluss quoted :
Matt. v. 28
"Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
I interpret this to mean that a guy who sees a woman and plans to have sex with her hath committed etc
Simply to feel lust is not a sin. It is just being normal. It is the intent to act, and the action that is wrong, if that sexual contact is wrong.
But the converse does not apply. A normal, red blooded, heterosexual guy looking at a naked beautiful woman will automatically feel lust. His heart beat will increase, his blood pressure will rise, his breathing speeds up, and he wants her.
Female sexuality is slower to be aroused than male. It often takes a lot of tactile stimulating, rather than visual. So sure, Lori can look on naked male beauty without arousal. However, to expect the male equivalent is just plain unrealistic.
Clueluss quoted :
Matt. v. 28
"Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
I interpret this to mean that a guy who sees a woman and plans to have sex with her hath committed etc
Simply to feel lust is not a sin. It is just being normal. It is the intent to act, and the action that is wrong, if that sexual contact is wrong.
hm...the "but i'm a man" excuse. :spank:
perhaps you have a different set of circumstances to deal with than a female, but that does not mean your mind and your perception are not just as powerful. lust is a desire of the flesh that is based in perception. would you agree? perception though, is formed in the mind, based on among other things, what you believe to be true and/or false. i didn't always know what i know now. i used to be lustful, and then i changed my mind, and now i'm not. this isn't religion it's psychology.
The Bible does not say something about intentions. It says proper and modest clothes.
No. See. If I mention that a certain group disagrees with you and you respond
they are evil and stupid
you may be paraphasing scripture
but you are explaining why they disagree with you. they disagree with you because they are stupid and evil.
If you think everyone is stupid and evil, then your response makes no sense.
If I point out that someone likes a Tv show you dislike and I ask why there is this difference and you answer
they are evil and stupid
how can this NOT be judging them as somehow different from you in these ways.
And yes, I know you said we are all sinners, blah, blah. And despite this you judge them.
So you split him into two. There is the physically attractive man, but that does not affect you sexually, its the love feelings you have that do. How strange and unlikely. I can see saying it is not ALL of why you want to have sex with him, but how can how he looks to you not be a part of your attraction?
I will bet his reasons for wanting to have sex with you include how you look.
It seems to me you still have judgments about sex being bad and love being good like the old Christians you think are evil and stupid.