Slashdot Mirror

Then they're wrong. Adultery is something very specific - sexual intercourse where at least one adult is married.

But if you look at Matthew 5:28, Jesus neither specifies married man nor married woman, which to me implies an expansion of the sin of adultery. Sure, initially it was defined as the 'mixing of seed', but that doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. And as I said below, if the act of lust itself is a sin then it follows that all forms of sexual contact would likely follow, as they almost necessarily involve lust. Alternatively, the sin could be against a woman's future husband or her virginity itself.

That said, Miseph has it right in this thread. Whether it is defined as a sin or not should not be used as a hammer to cause guilt. The barrier to sin is relatively low, so much so that we all do it. The message is not (or should not) be 'stop sinning so you can be saved', because it's impossible. Rather, it is a goal for believers, so they can act properly and respectfully towards others.

Put another way, nobody goes to Hell just because they got a BJ in High School. God just doesn't want his people exercising their sexuality outside the bounds of marriage.

Then they're wrong. Adultery is something very specific - sexual intercourse where at least one adult is married.

But if you look at Matthew 5:28, Jesus neither specifies married man nor married woman, which to me implies an expansion of the sin of adultery. Sure, initially it was defined as the 'mixing of seed', but that doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. And as I said below, if the act of lust itself is a sin then it follows that all forms of sexual contact would likely follow, as they almost necessarily involve lust. Alternatively, the sin could be against a woman's future husband or her virginity itself.

That said, Miseph has it right in this thread. Whether it is defined as a sin or not should not be used as a hammer to cause guilt. The barrier to sin is relatively low, so much so that we all do it. The message is not (or should not) be 'stop sinning so you can be saved', because it's impossible. Rather, it is a goal for believers, so they can act properly and respectfully towards others.

Put another way, nobody goes to Hell just because they got a BJ in High School. God just doesn't want his people exercising their sexuality outside the bounds of marriage.

Then they're wrong. Adultery is something very specific - sexual intercourse where at least one adult is married.

But if you look at Matthew 5:28, Jesus neither specifies married man nor married woman, which to me implies an expansion of the sin of adultery. Sure, initially it was defined as the 'mixing of seed', but that doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. And as I said below, if the act of lust itself is a sin then it follows that all forms of sexual contact would likely follow, as they almost necessarily involve lust. Alternatively, the sin could be against a woman's future husband or her virginity itself.

That said, Miseph has it right in this thread. Whether it is defined as a sin or not should not be used as a hammer to cause guilt. The barrier to sin is relatively low, so much so that we all do it. The message is not (or should not) be 'stop sinning so you can be saved', because it's impossible. Rather, it is a goal for believers, so they can act properly and respectfully towards others.

Put another way, nobody goes to Hell just because they got a BJ in High School. God just doesn't want his people exercising their sexuality outside the bounds of marriage.

One outreach of Creation Science Evangelism is Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation Seminar, now given by three speakers (including Dr. Hovind) around the country and even around the world! The creation seminar, along with debates, public school presentations, and our children's ministry, Dinosaur Adventure Land are supplemented by our line of creation related materials, to help others gain a better understanding of the creation/evolution subject and to help them spread the word. (None of the materials produced by Creation Science Evangelism are copyrighted, so feel free to copy those and distribute them freely.) Our web site is another facet of our ministry, provided to help spread the truth into all the world.

Maybe God is really grey-skinned with a big head and bug-eyes. The Bible didn't say "exactly in his image".

There's not reason to expect alien visitation on Earth until you get to Ezekiel.

If one is going to use a homily, one should at least get it right, somewhat tricky when even biblical scholars can't agree.

Either way it is given as 'the love of money' not 'money' that brings the evil deeds.

The New American Standard Bible translates it as

6:10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Whereas King James gives it as :

6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

As to what Jesus would do?

He spent the first 30 years of his life as the son of god doing nothing particualrly holy. He walked past the sick and injured all the time and left them to suffer. He was busy learning to carpent to fill his and Jospeh's pockets with sheckles.

Eventually, when he needed to get laid, he took up being a messiah. One of his first jobs was to take an obligated pilgrimmage. Arriving at the temple he decided to make a name for himself.

He turned over the money lenders tables and poured their coins on the floor ("Aw, come on mate, that'll take me ages to pick them up"). And what was their crime? It wasn't because they were lending money per se it was becuase they were doing it at the temple :

"Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business." John 2:16

So, when you think "What would Jesus do?" the answer is usually "nothing".

I think your misunderstanding of the saying is:

It's not the money that makes it hard; it's the human bent to self-aggrandizement and unwillingness to recognize where material blessing comes from that makes it hard.

See the story of the Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10:17-30). The money didn't make him leave sad. It was his love of money that did.

The saying has little to do with money, and everything to do with one's attitude towards it.