'SPIDER' !!!

I had a dream.

I dreamt of people writing in the 'religion chat' forum from every religious or non-religious persuasions, giving their views and opinions on topics in a civilized and insightful context, and an enlightening manner.

I dreamt of people sharing their point of view from their personnal perspectives, in an authentic and respectful manner.

I dreamt of people feeling safe to express their views without fearing the fascist attacks of 'fundies-in-training'.
(Fascist being used here to denounce the 'forcible suppression of all criticism or opposition' of individual and personnal interpretations of the bible, as randomly judged and applied by self-appointed 'fundies in training'.

I dreamt of Muslims, Buddhists, Indhus, and Christians sharing how the current topic and question of this thread:
"... Is Sin the Act or the Intent?..."
would be viewed through their respective religious, and cultural perspective of reality.

I dreamt of your opinion 'spider', being just ONE opinion among them all, as it should be.

I dreamt of you 'spider' thanking others for their generosity in sharing their different views, and humbly acknowledging that you learn tremendoulsy from others sharing their different perspectives.

I dreamt of people examining their own bleiefs, being free to draw their own conclusions, with their own conscience, rather than being 'worked out', and manipulated through retrograde and 'reverse marketing' tactics of 'apologetics', as practiced by the Fundie-inerrancy-brigade' !

It all starts with a dream!

I had a dream!

voileazur,

That sounds like a wonderful dream. But the reality is that this thread wasn't about morality in general, it was an attempt to use the Bible to attack Christianity. If you read the first post, you will see that it is clearly the case that Christian doctrine is questioned, by making assumptions about what the Bible teaches. But I do appreciate you telling us about your dream, I feel that it has brought us closer together.

The logic of the op also makes no sense!

Some claim that according to the Bible having sex out of wedlock is a sin.

Yet having sex within a marriage is perfectly acceptable and not a sin.

out of wedlock , and having sex within a marriage.
proving unequivocally that sin is INTENT and not the ACT.

Having sex out or in marriage are both acts! No intent there at all!

Intent means planning, once youve done it, it is beyond intent! You gave no example of intent and therefore the comparisson is nullified!

One is a sin, while the other isnt. period!

Please explain where the intent comes from, and please tell me how this nullifies any Christian arguments against being gay!

Spider wrote:
“But the reality is that this thread wasn't about morality in general, it was an attempt to use the Bible to attack Christianity.”

I find this very interesting Spider. This appears to suggest that there is indeed a difference between the Bible and Christianity.

I believe that my observations in the OP are valid observations. I wouldn’t have posted them had I not sincerely believed this.

I feel that if “Christianity” has misinterpreted their very own doctrine this is an important issue. And surely anyone who is interested in understanding the Bible correctly would be interested in this information.

I feel that the Aristotelian proof, using two clear premises from the Bible, to show how a specific conclusion must be true, would be of interest to anyone who is genuinely seeking truth.

Why would anyone wish to deny truth?

I have shown that the Bible is clearly saying that sin is contextual in at least one case.

I see this as a positive thing. There is nothing negative about it at all.

What’s negative about recognizing that sin is contextual?

The worst that could happen is that bigots who attempt to use the Bible to pass judgments on the actions of others would be shown to be wrong.

But Jesus already taught us not to do that anyway so those people are already abusing the religion.

Perhaps it is because Jesus knew that sin is contextual is why he suggested that we should not judge others.

Makes sense to me.

Fanta wrote:
“Please explain where the intent comes from, and please tell me how this nullifies any Christian arguments against being gay!”

The intent comes from the individual. If the intent is well-meaning and sincere meaning that the people involved sincerely care for each other and are completely willing to take full responsibility for any offspring they might produce, then having sex is not a sin.

Therefore sin is not merely an ‘act’ but the intentions must also be considered.

It is related to Christian arguments against being gay because their arguments are based on the idea that it is the ‘act’ that is a sin. But since act’s alone cannot be sin out of context then that argument falls flat on its face.

If a same-gendered couple genuinely love each other and their intent is sincere, then it cannot be considered to be a sin.

In other words, we can’t just reduce the idea of sin to the idea of an act. That’s a false conclusion that is obviously not supported by the Bible.

This is probably why Jesus taught us not to judge others. We simply can't know the context of their intent.

Fanta46,

You nailed it on the head.

The ACT that offends God isn't sex, it's sex outside of marriage. Abra wants to define the options as A) Intent (to have sex for pleasure) B) Act of having sex with someone you love. While the Bible makes it clear that the sin is having sex outside of the convenant of marriage. This is what I have been talking about with rationalization. Abra's position lacks a full and comprehensive look at the subject, he simply states two possiblities and quickly comes to the conclusion he wants to find.

Abracadabra,

===============================================================
I have shown that the Bible is clearly saying that sin is contextual in at least one case.
===============================================================

You are not correct in the least. Sin in the Bible is objective, not subjective. It is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. It is a sin to engage in homosexual relations. There is no case when it is not sinful for a Christian or Jew to engage in sex outside of marriage. There is no case when it is not sinful for a Christian or Jew to engage in homosexual relations. You are looking at it as "It's not a sin if you love the person" and if that's how you feel, then more power to you. But the Bible is clear on what is and is not a sin and if you love another man, a stranger or a goat, it's still a sin to have sex with the object of your affection. The Bible only condones sexual relations with someone with whom you are married.

Im in agreement spider!

If I intend to have sex outside marriage, to a woman or to another man, is just as sinful as if I actually have sex!

INTENT!

Not a very good example abbra!!

Spider wrote:
“The ACT that offends God isn't sex, it's sex outside of marriage. Abra wants to define the options as A) Intent (to have sex for pleasure) B) Act of having sex with someone you love. While the Bible makes it clear that the sin is having sex outside of the convenant of marriage. This is what I have been talking about with rationalization. Abra's position lacks a full and comprehensive look at the subject, he simply states two possiblities and quickly comes to the conclusion he wants to find.”

Your personally feelings about how I might personally view these things is totally irrelevant.

The bottom line is that the act of having sex is contextual. Period.

That’s given as a premise in the Bible.

Therefore sin is contextual and that’s the only conclusion that’s being made here.

Your attempt to muddy the waters by appealing to my own personal views is futile and irrelevant. That’s not part of the proof. The proof is simply that sex can me a sin, or not be a sin, depending on context.

Therefore, it’s clear that sin is contextual and not absolute.

My own personal views have nothing to do with it.

it is a sin to think about having sex with another
other than your spouse


But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28).

Fanta wrote:
“If I intend to have sex outside marriage, to a woman or to another man, is just as sinful as if I actually have sex!”

With all due respect Fanta you seem to be using the word “indend” here differently from the way I originally used it.

You are speaking entirely in terms of intending to perform an “act”. But you have failed to address your ‘intent’ (intentions) for wanting to engage in the act.

When I speak about “intent” I’m speaking about your ‘intentions’. Are they good, just, and moral? Or are they based on mere self-satisfaction without any “intent” to be sincere concerning any possible consequences of your actions?

The only thing that ‘marriage’ does is guarantee that vows will be kept. (guarantee intention)

But if the intention is already sincere then there’s no need to guarantee it.

You may be thinking in terms of “insincere” intent!!!

But that would be sinful.

ok magic man

you ready for this



my intention is to show every woman the best sex she has ever had

to give someone the best is a good intention is it not

but does that make it less a sin

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28).

Robin wrote:
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28)."

Very true Robin. But what does "lustfully" actually mean????

Again we're getting into words that everyone has their own interpretations about.

I think it's perfectly natural for a male human being to be sexually aroused by a sexy woman. Is that being 'lustful'?

To me it would not be.

Being 'lustful' means, to me, to dwell on the thought with intent. No man should feel sinful because of natural spontaneous desires. It only becomes "lust" if he begins to plot in his mind to encourage the thoughts and dwell on them.

To claim that it is a sin to be human and have normal human reactions is total nonsense and radical extremism. That’s just a ploy to make everyone feel guilty for being human!!!

Abracadabra,

===============================================================
Your personally feelings about how I might personally view these things is totally irrelevant.
===============================================================

I did not give my feelings on you view anything. I pointed out the fact that you are ignoring other options with your two part "Intention" or "Act" view. Your limit the possible intentions and acts. You don't address the fact that homosexuality might be sinful in and of itself. You don't allow the possiblity that sex is only lawful within the confines of marriage. You assume two limited possiblities instead of looking at all possiblities, which is why your position is flawed. Not because of your personal beliefs, but because your statements on a limited view of this subject.

@ adj

He also says that a marriage is between a man and a woman abbra.

Go forth and multiply! I know of no way a homosexual relationship can result in multiplication of the species!

Maybe you do! If so pray tell me how!

Robin wrote:
" my intention is to show every woman the best sex she has ever had

to give someone the best is a good intention is it not

but does that make it less a sin “

The only thing I would suggest here is that you are speaking in terms of purely physical sex. You are ignoring spirituality and emotion are you not?

Actually, I don’t believe that having sex out of wedlock is a sin. I never have believed that and if it says that in the Bible that was obviously a contamination of the God’s word by the human error of man.

However, I do believe that all aspects must be sincere, and this would include emotions and spirituality.

I can honestly say that I have never had sex with any women I would not be willing to marry.

If they are not willing to marry me that’s is not my fault!!!

My intentions are good. So I am not sinning having sex with her.

If her intentions are to just use me, then she has sinned, not me.

Fanta wrote:
"Go forth and multiply! I know of no way a homosexual relationship can result in multiplication of the species!"

Yes, but your already into the Bible some distance by that point.

Originally God just created Adam and had intended to create a race of all men. A perfect homosexual world.

But Adam wasn't pleased and so God had to change his plans with an after thought and create Eve from Adam's rib.

This is the only reason that the world isn't entirely homosexual.

Spider wrote:
” You assume two limited possiblities instead of looking at all possiblities, which is why your position is flawed. Not because of your personal beliefs, but because your statements on a limited view of this subject.”



I’m sorry Spider but coming from you this is hilarious.

Are you the one who’s always speaking in absolutes instead of looking at all possibilities?

You just proclaim that being gay is a sin. Period AMEN!

That’s not a limited view??????

If having a limited view is a sign of a flawed position then all of your positions appear to be flawed based on that logic.

I think the view that sin is contextual is a much BROADER view, not a limited view as you suggest.

Abracadabra,

You are comparing apples to organges.

When I say that homosexuality is a sin, I'm making a moral statement. Moral statements don't have to include possiblities, because they are statements of personal fact.

Your original post preports to be an attempt to reason sexual morality in the Bible. Reason should involve all the available facts and possiblities, but you limited the discussion to two possiblities and ignored most of the facts.

Huge difference there, my friend.

lust (lst)
n.
1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
2.
a. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
b. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.
3. Obsolete Pleasure; relish.
intr.v. lust·ed, lust·ing, lusts
To have an intense or obsessive desire, especially one that is sexual.

------------

lust·ful (lstfl)
adj.
Excited or driven by lust.
lustful·ly adv.
lustful·ness n.

------------

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lustfully