St. Paul on LOOKING (Mt. 5:28)

[SkyWriting]

IRRELEVANT.

We should not look to some culture's norm, either now or then.

Return to stoning prostitutes then?
And the customers as well?

 

[SkyWriting]

I gave you NO definition of evil except that it requires hatred.

16"For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."

 

[toLiJC]

THEE touch:

Would not the touch of real kissing be more enticing than only seeing from a distance?

So how do we explain that St. Paul recommended kissing and did not say anything about not looking at anybody?

I.e., what does I Thess. 5:26 mean for Mt. 5:28 ?

and how could some people explain Luke 7:45-50 (and the whole passage beginning from the 36th verse) ?!

Blessings

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Evil is separation from God. There is no indication that hatred is required.
Hatred is actually closer to love. You hate that you can't control those you
love or their situations. Apathy is closer to evil.

So hating evil, like Scripture enjoins, is not even possible?

There are many different evils; none of them is apathy, if I'm not mistaken. Apathy is rather neutral with regard to everything, including evil.

Could be all evil is based on "separation from God," in that if one is very close to God one would not be involved in evil. But many things are pointed to as evil without any reference to God.

Your, "hate that you can't control those you love or their situations," that is one possible form of hatred but far from encompassing all hatred.

The hatred I was pointing to is the moral necessity of being opposed to evil, by definition I think.
What particular thing(s) are pointed to as evil, that is quite another matter.

 

[MonstersvsMartyrs]

When you kiss your mom, are you lusting after her in your heart?

 

[redleghunter]

Males in the Middle East greet each other with kisses every day.

Everyone else in the last two thousand years has known that.

Lol yeah remember those whisker full expressions of friendship. Trust me I was not looking.

I was not shocked as I married into a traditional Italian family. My wedding was similar to the opening scene of the movie the Godfather.

 

[redleghunter]

When you kiss your mom, are you lusting after her in your heart?

There is no amount of Clorox which can erase this.

 

[SkyWriting]

So hating evil, like Scripture enjoins, is not even possible?

Please quote me on a specific challenge.

 

[SkyWriting]

Could be all evil is based on "separation from God," in that if one is very close to God one would not be involved in evil. But many things are pointed to as evil without any reference to God.

Because of the separation from God I propose.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
So hating evil, like Scripture enjoins, is not even possible?

Please quote me on a specific challenge.

Quote you, or quote Scripture?

Ps 97:10 Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.
Pr 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
(KJV)

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
Could be all evil is based on "separation from God," in that if one is very close to God one would not be involved in evil. But many things are pointed to as evil without any reference to God.

Because of the separation from God I propose.

Are you saying they are falsely pointed out as evil, that there is nothing evil except separation from God?
And what does that mean then, that the only lack of goodness is lack of God?
Can you point out what constitutes "separation from God," how we then recognize evil?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
IRRELEVANT.
We should not look to some culture's norm, either now or then.

Return to stoning prostitutes then?
And the customers as well?

To "return" to doing something in the manner of a very foreign culture is to look to some (other) cultures norm, what I specifically said we should not do.

 

[PloverWing]

IRRELEVANT.

We should not look to some culture's norm, either now or then.

It's not irrelevant, when it's St. Paul's own culture.

 

[JoeP222w]

THEE touch:

Would not the touch of real kissing be more enticing than only seeing from a distance?

So how do we explain that St. Paul recommended kissing and did not say anything about not looking at anybody?

I.e., what does I Thess. 5:26 mean for Mt. 5:28 ?

Cultural and historical context matters. The "holy kiss" referred to in 1 Thessalonians 5:26 was a cultural greeting of the time, much like a handshake in the west expresses a greeting today. There was absolutely nothing sexual about it, nor was it intended to cause sexual arousal. Matthew 5:28 is referring to sexual lust, not just a mere greeting. So the two passages are not comparable in the sense you are implying.

 

[JoeP222w]

We should not look to some culture's norm, either now or then.

Then you do not understand how to explain (exegete) scripture at all, if you demand that cultural context must be ignored. Or do you demand that we go out and stone all homosexuals and adulterers in our culture today since you claim cultural context must not be applied? That is what you are implying.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

It's not irrelevant, when it's St. Paul's own culture.

So you think so, you think St. Paul was simply calling for what the culture he happened to be living in, would do?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Then you do not understand how to explain (exegete) scripture at all, if you demand that cultural context must be ignored. Or do you demand that we go out and stone all homosexuals and adulterers in our culture today since you claim cultural context must not be applied? That is what you are implying.

UNTRUE.

St. Paul did not call for "go out and stone all homosexuals and adulterers;" I am calling for doing what St. Paul proclaimed, at least not be prima facie against it if he was so constantly for it.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Cultural and historical context matters. The "holy kiss" referred to in 1 Thessalonians 5:26 was a cultural greeting of the time, much like a handshake in the west expresses a greeting today. There was absolutely nothing sexual about it, nor was it intended to cause sexual arousal. Matthew 5:28 is referring to sexual lust, not just a mere greeting. So the two passages are not comparable in the sense you are implying.

So you think in his time everybody was concerned to be holy and therefor they all holy kissed?

If Scripture just referred to, "greet everyone with a kiss," then you might be correct. If it was a mere greeting.
Maybe it was, maybe not.

 

[JoeP222w]

So you think in his time everybody was concerned to be holy and therefor they all holy kissed?

In the context, Paul is addressing believers/Christians. So no, Christians are not called to greet unbelievers with a "holy kiss". By God's grace and the work of the Holy Spirit, I will greet an unbeliever with kindness and grace and respect, but I most certainly will greet a brother in Christ with far more connection and love than I would with an unbeliever.

If Scripture just referred to, "greet everyone with a kiss," then you might be correct. If it was a mere greeting.
Maybe it was, maybe not.

As mentioned, Paul was addressing believers, not unbelievers.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

In the context, Paul is addressing believers/Christians. So no, Christians are not called to greet unbelievers with a "holy kiss". By God's grace and the work of the Holy Spirit, I will greet an unbeliever with kindness and grace and respect, but I most certainly will greet a brother in Christ with far more connection and love than I would with an unbeliever.
As mentioned, Paul was addressing believers, not unbelievers.

Who said anything about unbelievers? St. Paul said we should be "holy kissing" the brethren, nothing about unbelievers. A red herring!

edit: Sorry, you are partly correct - I said "everyone," when probably it should have been "the brethren." It often says "one another," which seems pretty everyone-ish.
Mostly because of the (now obviousl) same sex perversion being so much of society, I personally would never read it is a man kissing a man. Some like to say that is "what it is about." (A custom of the time, perhaps.)

I consider the St. Paul admonitions to be very inspired, very in the Spirit of Love, and hence definitely male-female.