inappropriate contentography Is Not True

[bhsmte]

Which is why we would have a different interpretation of scripture.

Christians themselves, have a million different interpretations of scripture.

 

[Phil.Stein]

Christians themselves, have a million different interpretations of scripture.

Is it logically defensible to believe a good God gave a command (i.e. to fill the Earth and subdue it) that required men to sin (i.e. lust) to obey it? There are many interpretations of scripture, but only a few of these rely on logic and the consistency (and correctness) of scripture.

 

[Freodin]

Is it logically defensible to believe a good God gave a command (i.e. to fill the Earth and subdue it) that required men to sin (i.e. lust) to obey it? There are many interpretations of scripture, but only a few of these rely on logic and the consistency (and correctness) of scripture.

There are interpretations of scripture that imply that "lust" is always sinful... even if it is directly towards your lawful spouse. It's also quite obvious that the act of procreation required arousal, and not rationality to function.
And it should also be clear that such a state is induced by biological reactions, and not legal analysis.

So if God indeed created this process, then, yes, he would require men to do something that he forbade in order to achive something that he commanded.

As I so tongue-in-cheek remarked earlier: there's the alternative process of forming humans from clay. He should have kept to that, if he didn't like sex.

 

[Phil.Stein]

There are interpretations of scripture that imply that "lust" is always sinful... even if it is directly towards your lawful spouse. It's also quite obvious that the act of procreation required arousal, and not rationality to function.
And it should also be clear that such a state is induced by biological reactions, and not legal analysis.

So if God indeed created this process, then, yes, he would require men to do something that he forbade in order to achive something that he commanded.

As I so tongue-in-cheek remarked earlier: there's the alternative process of forming humans from clay. He should have kept to that, if he didn't like sex.

And my argument is that arousal for one's spouse, or someone one intends to engage in a lifelong and mutually beneficial marriage covenant with, is love, rather than lust.

 

[Freodin]

And my argument is that arousal for one's spouse, or someone one intends to engage in a lifelong and mutually beneficial marriage covenant with, is love, rather than lust.

You would be wrong then.
You can strive to engage in a lifelong and mutually beneficial relationship with someone as much as you want... if you don't feel lust for this person now and then, your sexlife will be rather disappointing.

But I can understand where you are comming from... and I completely disagree with this approach. What you are doing here is making an irrelevant distinction to justify your position.

 

[Phil.Stein]

You would be wrong then.
You can strive to engage in a lifelong and mutually beneficial relationship with someone as much as you want... if you don't feel lust for this person now and then, your sexlife will be rather disappointing.

But I can understand where you are comming from... and I completely disagree with this approach. What you are doing here is making an irrelevant distinction to justify your position.

Not really. Just Christians have to rely on several axioms to ensure a correct interpretation of scripture, and one of these is that God is good. Without this, Christian doctrine/theology falls apart. (Jesus Himself said that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit - that is, attributing God's work to Satan (or in my view, possibly similarly believing that God is not good) - is the only unforgivable sin).