Christian God encourages abstaining from sexual relations

[2PhiloVoid]

Good to know that hermeneutics help you read MORE THAN the text actually says.


I think Christians here would have a field day with each other's beliefs. Everyone uses their own system, it seems to decide which text to follow and what the text actually means. We've been through that already, no need to rehash.

Moreover, every time one of you skeptics says something like "no need to go further; no need to rehash; no need to bring up an additional field of inquiry," I just think they're stalling and hedging from having to be accountable for their own emotively decided agendas regarding the Christian faith.

You don't want to hear it because you're not here to listen or learn, are you? NO, you're hear to try to 'burn' the Christian Faith. Besides, God Forbid that a Christian of any sort actually shows up and shows that at least some of the things that atheistic skeptics try to pound out on CF are very close, if not right on, in being Dead Wrong and/or showing a complete lack of education.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's no secret that Jesus was not married and he is considered a perfect human being, at a level all Christians are striving to or are supposed to be striving to.

Note what Jesus said:
Matthew 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

This means that a young man who is looking to get married can not look at his future wife with lust, or sexual desire, lest he be committing adultery!

Sounds like a nearly impossible level to attain, except you resort to radical means of "fixing" yourself.

Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

That bolded comment is not really practiced today, but God only knows how many men have permanently damaged their reproductive function based on a literal reading of the Bible.

And, what about Paul? What does he say on the subject?

1 Cor. 7:17 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

....
7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul echoes the teaching of Jesus, albeit in a milder form. He is not promoting castration, but permits marriage, albeit he is saying it's really for those who do not self control.

Btw, what is one fruit of the Spirit? Self Control!

FYI, just thought I'd share the teachings you won't hear in today's Bible studies. I'm glad they are not taught or practiced, but why claim to follow God and Jesus while ignoring these bits?

While I'm at it, I think the following song most applies to this thread, as it pertains to today's Psycho-Sexual Social Matrix:

Song Lyrics--- Holy Solider: Cover Me

The color magazines - they violate my eyes, trying to sell me compromise,
A perfect figure on the television screen; even the dirt looks very clean.

You're another pawn in the middle of the game,
We control your mind, we manipulate,
You're another pawn, that's right,
You're just all the same,
We control your soul, we don't hesitate.

Standing attention, all the billboards wait in line,
They try to trap me, one at a time,
A glass of whiskey and a pack of cigarettes,
We eat it up and then digest.

You're another pawn in the middle of the game,
We control your mind, we manipulate,
You're another pawn, that's right,
You're just all the same,
We control your soul, we don't hesitate.

Rain on me, shine on me,
Lord, rain on me,
Cover me, yeah,
Rain on me, shine on me,
Rain on me,
Cover me, yeah.

You're another pawn, that's right,
You're just all the same,
We control your soul, we don't hesitate.

Rain on me, shine on me,
Lord, rain on me,
Cover me, yeah,
Rain on me, shine on me,
Rain on me,
Cover me, yeah,
Rain on me, shine on me,
Lord, rain on me,
Cover me, yeah,
Rain on me, shine on me,
Rain on me,
Cover me, cover me, yeah.

Rain on me, Lord,
Shine on me, cover me.

 

[BigV]

You don't want to hear it because you're not here to listen or learn, are you?

Listen and learn what? I am amazed at the mental acrobatics Christians go through to keep their "Bible based faith".

I just think they're stalling and hedging from having to be accountable for their own emotively decided agendas regarding the Christian faith.

Oh the irony. Other than religion, is there any other field where hermeneutics is defined as finding a meaning in the text that contradicts what the text actually says?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Listen and learn what? I am amazed at the mental acrobatics Christians go through to keep their "Bible based faith".

That's ACROBATICS, to you, Bud !!!

Oh the irony. Other than religion, is there any other field where hermeneutics is defined as finding a meaning in the text that contradicts what the text actually says?

Yes. But you knew that already, right?

 

[BigV]

That's ACROBATICS, to you, Bud !!!

That's Hermeneutical Acrobatics. Makit it a course, write a ton of books and become rich. Make Benny Hinn jealous.

yes. But you knew that already, right?

Of course.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Did you ever see any ?

It's no secret that Jesus was not married and he is considered a perfect human being, at a level all Christians are striving to or are supposed to be striving to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's Hermeneutical Acrobatics. Makit it a course, write a ton of books and become rich. Make Benny Hinn jealous.

This comment of yours shows that you're confused to an Nth degree about many things; and to me, it's a wonder you can even make it through the day. God forbid that you'd let down your firewall and allow someone to help you learn a little better!

Of course.

And that's why you asked, right?

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus was a Jewish sage and prophet, not a Greek philosopher, and often spoke in a hyperbolic fashion to emphasize a point. The idea that Jesus required castration or even celibacy is simply not true.

Look at the overall context of the passage, he's responding to the Pharisees and pointing out that they are being overly legalistic in interpreting the Law of Moses, and pointing out that higher moral standards are possible than what they deem to be sufficient (write a letter of divorce and get a new wife).

Furthermore, Jesus teaching that some are made eunuchs by God, others by men, and still others choose it, indicates an acceptance that people have different dispositions according to their natures and circumstances. This is far from some kind of legalistic absolutism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus was a Jewish sage and prophet, not a Greek philosopher, and often spoke in a hyperbolic fashion to emphasize a point. The idea that Jesus required castration or even celibacy is simply not true.

Look at the overall context of the passage, he's responding to the Pharisees and pointing out that they are being overly legalistic in interpreting the Law of Moses, and pointing out that higher moral standards are possible than what they deem to be sufficient (write a letter of divorce and get a new wife).

Furthermore, Jesus teaching that some are made eunuchs by God, others by men, and still others choose it, indicates an acceptance that people have different dispositions according to their natures and circumstances. This is far from some kind of legalistic absolutism.

See? You understand the implications of Hermeneutics. Why can't @BigV?

 

[BigV]

Did you ever see any ?

You must be the only one

 

[BigV]

This comment of yours shows that you're confused to an Nth degree about many things; and to me, it's a wonder you can even make it through the day. God forbid that you'd let down your firewall and allow someone to help you learn a little better!

Well, judging by some of the Christian posters here, Christian Hermeneutics seems to be learning how a given text doesn't mean what it actually says to do. For example, a text "do not resist an evildoer" actually means, "use deadly force if necessary to protect yourself or your loved ones".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, judging by some of the Christian posters here, Christian Hermeneutics seems to be learning how a given text doesn't mean what it actually says to do. For example, a text "do not resist an evildoer" actually means, "use deadly force if necessary to protect yourself or your loved ones".

So, according to you, when Jesus says to 'hate my spouse, or else I can't be a true disciple of Christ,' then when you read that, you actually think Jesus wants me to hate my wife and follow Him?

Surely you don't read it that way, right?

 

[BigV]

Jesus was a Jewish sage and prophet, not a Greek philosopher, and often spoke in a hyperbolic fashion to emphasize a point. The idea that Jesus required castration or even celibacy is simply not true.

Right, allegedly. What we know about Jewish sage prophets, however, is that they detested anything Greek. And yet, all of the original Christian documents are written in Greek. Perhaps the Jewish sages detested Greek philosophy but can you be sure the early Christian authors detested it?

Look at the overall context of the passage, he's responding to the Pharisees and pointing out that they are being overly legalistic in interpreting the Law of Moses, and pointing out that higher moral standards are possible than what they deem to be sufficient (write a letter of divorce and get a new wife).

Well, here is where I disagree with you. Jesus actually endorsed Pharisees, if GMatthew quotes him right. In some ways, you can say Jesus says the Pharisees don't go far enough.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

Did Jesus misspoke? Or was he misquoted? Sounds like he is endorsing the Pharisees, but complains that they are not following their own teachings.

My OP, with Jesus talking about adultery is a perfect illustration of Jesus going further legalistically than the Pharisees. With Pharisees, if you are thinking about adultery, but are not committing the act, then you have not sinned. But Jesus says that if you are planning it, you have done it already!

He also says that if your eye causes you to stumble, then you should gauge it out. Pretty extreme, even for a hyperbole. Btw, Jesus didn't say he was using a hyperbole.

Furthermore, Jesus teaching that some are made eunuchs by God, others by men, and still others choose it, indicates an acceptance that people have different dispositions according to their natures and circumstances. This is far from some kind of legalistic absolutism.

Jesus speaks about the Eunuchs right after this:
Matthew 19:8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

And then Jesus speaks about eunuchs. Basically, agreeing with the disciples that perhaps it's better not to marry!

And I'm not surprised @2PhiloVoid endorsed your view.

 

[BigV]

So, according to you, when Jesus says to 'hate my spouse, or else I can't be a true disciple of Christ,' then when you read that, you actually think Jesus wants me to hate my wife and follow Him?

Surely you don't read it that way, right?

Jesus should speak clearly. If he doesn't want you to hate your spouse, then he shouldn't say you should hate your spouse.

Of course, if Jesus agrees with Paul, that it's better for a man NOT to touch a woman, then hating your spouse makes perfect sense. If you hate your wife, you will not want to have relations with her.

Btw, one of the early complaints about Christians is that the women who converted refused to have sex with their husbands. No doubt contributing to the persecution of the Christian preachers. I wish I had a reference for it. I may post on this later.

 

[FireDragon76]

Right, allegedly. What we know about Jewish sage prophets, however, is that they detested anything Greek.

Not necessarily. Jesus grew up in a province that had many Greeks.

The NT is written in Greek because it was the most commonly spoken language in that part of the world. Many Jews spoke it as a first language, and they were the earliest Christians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus should speak clearly. If he doesn't want you to hate your spouse, then he shouldn't say you should hate your spouse.

........ while I agree with you that a number of things that Jesus said are difficult to understand, He did indicate that he spoke in parables, and in at least some figures of speech, for a reason; granted, the reason was for His own rhetorical and spiritual purposes, but with time and study, I was able to eventually "get it." But that wasn't the hardest part of my own trekking through the Christian Faith.

Of course, if Jesus agrees with Paul, that it's better for a man NOT to touch a woman, then hating your spouse makes perfect sense. If you hate your wife, you will not want to have relations with her.

My understanding of Paul's directions to the folks in Corinth is a little different than yours apparently. And what church did you say you went to when you were a Christian?

Btw, one of the early complaints about Christians is that the women who converted refused to have sex with their husbands. No doubt contributing to the persecution of the Christian preachers. I wish I had a reference for it. I may post on this later.

Please do!

 

[BigV]

Not necessarily. Jesus grew up in a province that had many Greeks.

Josephus says that he has taken great pains to learn the language of the Greeks. The hyperlink shows a few pages about that. Also, 1st Century Rabbis did not encourage learning Greek, and most people were uneducated anyways.

If educated Josephus had problems with learning Greek, what about uneducated Jewish fishermen? I guess if you believe in miracles, anything is possible.

 

[FireDragon76]

Josephus says that he has taken great pains to learn the language of the Greeks. The hyperlink shows a few pages about that. Also, 1st Century Rabbis did not encourage learning Greek, and most people were uneducated anyways.

If educated Josephus had problems with learning Greek, what about uneducated Jewish fishermen? I guess if you believe in miracles, anything is possible.

Jews were not "uneducated" as a people, they valued literacy a great deal as every male was expected to be able to read the Torah.

 

[BigV]

Jews were not "uneducated" as a people, they valued literacy a great deal as every male was expected to be able to read the Torah.

Can you cite any sources for this claim? And I'm talking about the times of Jesus.

Here is my source:

Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e.

Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past.

Also, remember that the disciples were considered unlearned men by their contemporaries

Acts 4:13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

 

[BigV]

Please do!

I'll probably find it when I'm not looking, but here is something:

CHURCH FATHERS: A Plea for the Christians (Athenagoras), ch. 33
Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children. For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite. Nay, you would find many among us, both men and women, growing old unmarried, in hope of living in closer communion with God. But if the remaining in virginity and in the state of an eunuch brings nearer to God, while the indulgence of carnal thought and desire leads away from Him, in those cases in which we shun the thoughts, much more do we reject the deeds. For we bestow our attention, not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of actions, — that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. For whosoever puts away his wife, says He, and marries another, commits adultery; Matthew 19:9 not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.

Now, it's understandable how in that context, once your spouse converts to Christianity with teachers such as this one, the spouse would then change their behavior, making their unbelieving partner not very happy with them.