Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
> From: thomas malloy >> And Steven Johnson (OrionWorks) [posted]: Greetings Thomas, Again, I'm guilty of contributing additional OT bandwidth... see below: > I posted; >>> I found the response to this thread interesting, it was >>> as if I'd been subscribed to a religious list. > >> I think you're right on that one. (Some are complaining about this >> too! They might have a point.) > I surprised by the number of posters who have sided with my side Really? Who? >> And then, there's the phrase: Accept no other god other than >> me as the true god. > Exactly And which brand name is that? >> It would seem that within your perception of reality Satan >> is indeed a very clever fellow. > He's the one who started this mess. Then there is his > writing, which is quite persuasive. OTOH, he repeats the > same themes. The occult, if you don't know what you're looking > for, you'll never see it, but if you do know what you're > looking for, you'll never miss it. Ok, Thomas. Enlighten me. What [themes] should I be looking for? >> It would seem that, for you, brand loyalty is worth >> fighting for (I'm not speaking in the most literal terms >> here), where the final body count is everything. >> How do you know you've chosen the right brand? > I'm a sheep of Israel. I was chosen by G-d. With all due respect, Thomas, surely you can come up with a better response than that for IBR, (Intelligent Brand Recognition). Sheep are routinely collected for sheering. Later in life, as they approach retirement age, they can look forward to being slaughtered. G-d chose this line of work for you? Obviously, you are speaking in symbolic terms. But here's my problem, Thomas: It can be insanely difficult to figure out when you speak literally and when you are speaking symbolically, particularly since you have stated for the record that you're a creationist, and as such, you seem to take a lot of so-called historical events literally. It's obvious you're NOT a sheep - but what about the rest of the symbolism? > I've been listening to Peter Gerstein, the UFO Lawyer being > interviewed on C to C AM. He has the same blind stop that you > do Steven. Feel free to elaborate in detail on what my "blind spot" is. This is your chance to set the record straight, Thomas. I have often described what I perceive are your blind spots, and as such, it is only fair that you receive equal billing. > His URL is www.pagenews.info . BTW, the above URL is a broken link. AFAIKT there is no web site with the above URL. Googling the phrase "Peter Gerstein UFO" retrieves up one or two tepid hits, one being: http://www.zoominfo.com/directory/Gersten_Peter_1361100.htm > He realized that this is a closed system, ergo UFO's are > based in this solar system. I'm sure that he would agree with > me that humans, in their present evil form, equipped with a > F T L drive, would be a blight on the universe. He claims to > have read all the books on UFO's but he pointedly didn't > mention Jacque Vallie, George Noory mentioned him, and > Peter ignored it. Anyone who has read the books knows that > the replilians are blood sucking liars. Which books are you referring to, Thomas? UFO books and/or research attributed to Jacque Vallee? [Note spelling of last name] Your comments are highly confusing, if not grossly misleading. You seem to be implying in the above wording that Jacque Vallee believes that aliens are both reptilian and "blood sucking liars." Really? IMHO, Jacque Vallee is one of the best UFO researchers around. I've read most of his books on the UFO phenomena. I would also highly recommend the reading of "Forbidden Science." IMHO, it is by far one of his best publications consisting of Vallee's own personal diary notes recorded during an fascinating time in UFO research [and documented suppression] back in the 1960s. That is why I state for the record that your comments (as stated above) are highly confusing if not downright misleading. In fact they are just plain ludicrous. > He has also fought > the establishment in court for the release of documents > related to the phenomena, he was thwarted by their pleading > national security. He can also see that things are > rapidly coming to a head. If he is right, we will enter > the final seven years on Dec 21. OTOH, he doesn't believe > in the Biblical world view. Given the similarity of your > world views, you might be interested in subscribing to > his newsletter. Specifically what "world views" to do you suspect I might share with Mr. Gerstein? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible PLUS JOKES
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 5:58 AM Subject: RE: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > Hang on, hang on, the reply and forwarding of emails makes it look like I > wrote this sh.t below. Cut it out Mr Revtec, how dare you! My name is Jeff. Jeff is spelled out at the bottom of my copy of the message. Don't know why it is not on yours. Here are a few new jokes to make you feel better. I hope this makes up for any distress I caused you. JEFF THOUGHTS to PONDER Life is sexually transmitted. Good Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die. Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and they won't bother you for weeks. Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again. All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism. Why does a slight tax increase cost you two hundred dollars and a substantial tax cut saves you thirty cents? In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal. Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. I had amnesia once -- or twice. Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic. All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy. If the world were a logical place, men would ride horses sidesaddle. What is a "free" gift? Aren't all gifts free? They told me I was gullible and I believed them. Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto a freeway. Two can live as cheaply as one, for half as long. Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone. What if there were no hypothetical questions? One nice thing about egotists: They don't talk about other people. A flashlight is a case for holding dead batteries. I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not sure. The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity. Is Marx's tomb a communist plot? Show me a man with both feet firmly on the ground, and I'll show you a man who can't get his pants on or off. It's not an optical illusion. It just looks like one. Is it my imagination or do buffalo wings taste like chicken? > > No more from this thread from me unless it particularly funny because I do > like a good joke. > > Jokes anyone, please let's have at least one joke posting per week. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of revtec > Sent: 14 December 2005 22:24 > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > > > ----- Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:53 AM > Subject: RE: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > > > > The ones who lusted left heaven long ago and came here. According to > > the Book of Enoch, they are imprisoned here awaiting judgment. > > And, who will judge them? According to Paul, it is us! > > 1st Corinthians 6:3 "Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" > > Is it these angels or all of them? > > What qualifies us to do that? > > Is it because that we, in the course of living our human lives, are > graduates of the school of hard knocks. Whereas, the angels have not had to > survive the kinds of challenges we routinely face? > > Jeff > >
RE: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Hang on, hang on, the reply and forwarding of emails makes it look like I wrote this sh.t below. Cut it out Mr Revtec, how dare you! No more from this thread from me unless it particularly funny because I do like a good joke. Jokes anyone, please let's have at least one joke posting per week. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of revtec Sent: 14 December 2005 22:24 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:53 AM Subject: RE: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > The ones who lusted left heaven long ago and came here. According to > the Book of Enoch, they are imprisoned here awaiting judgment. And, who will judge them? According to Paul, it is us! 1st Corinthians 6:3 "Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" Is it these angels or all of them? What qualifies us to do that? Is it because that we, in the course of living our human lives, are graduates of the school of hard knocks. Whereas, the angels have not had to survive the kinds of challenges we routinely face? Jeff
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
> From: Standing Bear ... > Enough rant for one day! > > Standing Bear [NOTE: My Charter.net mail server is once again acting flaky. I don't know if others have received Mr. Bear's latest comments or not. I've received Mr. Bear's post through our server at work, but not through normal channels - my Charter.net server. So keep that in mind if you haven't yet received his post.] Goodness me, Mr. Bear! What jerked your chain today! Concerning your warnings, and the many broad sweeping subjects expressed in your latest post I find it amusing that you've also managed to generate one of the most lengthy and turgidly detailed responses to date. Well...actually MANY topics were discussed! Mr. Beaty, this is your list. In the end you must decide if subject threads like the current one are getting way too off-topic. I have heard complains from other members that Vortex-l has suffered, that real science is being crowded out and replaced with endless topics based more on the expression of personal eccentricities. It's entertaining, for sure, but strictly speaking it isn't the pursuit of science - even new and/or controversial science. I also admit that I'm guilty of having contributed my own brand of eccentric non-scientific opinions on this topic as well. But getting back to some of the comments by the esteemed Mr. Bear. Concerning our genetic heritage. Despite my jabs of humor directed at your expense I find much of what you have discussed intriguing and maybe possibly even accurate (well...possibly to a certain extent). However, there really isn't any way to prove or disprove any of it - for now. At present it seems to me to be more a modern myth as compared to an intriguing anthropological theory. Please keep in mind that in my book a good myth is ok, too! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
I posted; And Steven Johnson Greetings Thomas, Vortexians; I found the response to this thread interesting, it was as if I'd been subscribed to a religious list. I think you're right on that one. (Some are complaining about this too! They might have a point.) I surprised by the number of posters who have sided with my side And then, there's the phrase: Accept no other god other than me as the true god. Exactly It would seem that within your perception of reality Satan is indeed a very clever fellow. He's the one who started this mess. Then there is his writing, which is quite persuasive. OTOH, he repeats the same themes. The occult, if you don't know what you're looking for, you'll never see it, but if you do know what you're looking for, you'll never miss it. It would seem that, for you, brand loyalty is worth fighting for (I'm not speaking in the most literal terms here), where the final body count is everything. How do you know you've chosen the right brand? I'm a sheep of Israel. I was chosen by G-d. I've been listening to Peter Gerstein, the UFO Lawyer being interviewed on C to C AM. He has the same blind stop that you do Steven. His URL is www.pagenews.info . He realized that this is a closed system, ergo UFO's are based in this solar system. I'm sure that he would agree with me that humans, in their present evil form, equipped with a F T L drive, would be a blight on the universe. He claims to have read all the books on UFO's but he pointedly didn't mention Jacque Vallie, George Noory mentioned him, and Peter ignored it. Anyone who has read the books knows that the replilians are blood sucking liars. He has also fought the establishment in court for the release of documents related to the phenomena, he was thwarted by their pleading national security. He can also see that things are rapidly coming to a head. If he is right, we will enter the final seven years on Dec 21. OTOH, he doesn't believe in the Biblical world view. Given the similarity of your world views, you might be interested in subscribing to his newsletter. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:53 AM Subject: RE: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > The ones who lusted left heaven long ago and came here. According to > the Book of Enoch, they are imprisoned here awaiting judgment. And, who will judge them? According to Paul, it is us! 1st Corinthians 6:3 "Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" Is it these angels or all of them? What qualifies us to do that? Is it because that we, in the course of living our human lives, are graduates of the school of hard knocks. Whereas, the angels have not had to survive the kinds of challenges we routinely face? Jeff
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
> From: Standing Bear ... > Enough rant for one day! > > Standing Bear [NOTE: My Charter.net mail server is once again acting flaky. I don't know if others have received Mr. Bear's latest comments or not. I've received Mr. Bear's post through our server at work, but not through normal channels - my Charter.net server. So keep that in mind if you haven't yet received his post.] Goodness me, Mr. Bear! What jerked your chain today! Concerning your warnings, and the many broad sweeping subjects expressed in your latest post I find it amusing that you've also managed to generate one of the most lengthy and turgidly detailed responses to date. Well...actually MANY topics were discussed. Mr. Beaty, this is your list. In the end you must decide if subject threads like the current one are getting way too off-topic. I have heard complains from other members that Vortex-l has suffered, that real science is being crowded out and replaced with endless topics based more on the expression of personal eccentricities. It's entertaining, for sure, but strictly speaking it isn't the pursuit of science - even new and/or controversial science. I also admit that I'm guilty of having contributed my own brand of eccentric non-scientific opinions on this topic as well. But getting back to some of the comments by the esteemed Mr. Bear. Concerning our genetic heritage, and despite my jabs of humor directed at your expense I find much of what you have discussed intriguing and maybe possibly even accurate (well...possibly to a certain extent). However, there really isn't any way to prove or disprove any of it - for now. At present it seems to me to be more a modern myth as compared to an intriguing anthropological theory. Please keep in mind that in my book a good myth is ok, too! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Standing Bear wrote: This thread is really spam. No, this thread is just a symptom. We're sitting in the waiting room, some experimenting, most just waiting, hoping that somebody's going to jump up and shout "The Jubilee's here! I've closed the loop!" A few years back it looked like that was about to happen. But years have passed, the researchers who are actively looking have gotten older, and nobody's announced the Jubilee. Jed's announcements of startling new papers seem to be less and less frequent, the "new" items outside the arena of CF get even harder to believe (or even more mundane), and it all starts to look pretty gray. Patterson's miracle cell self-destructed, BLP needs to either rewrite all of physics starting at the sophomore level or recant their results, Mizuno's apparently given up on low temp wet cells, and the only one claiming anything which has the possibility of going commercial is Mitch Swartz and all he ever posts these days are rants against Jed. And so, those of us taking up space on the list who aren't actively experimenting are getting bored waiting for The Breakthrough and we're talking about other stuff in the mean time. Unfortunately for the noise level, this forum's actually a pretty friendly place to talk about goofy stuff like the merits of the book of Enoch. The "real" religious groups are chock full of people who take it all so seriously that there can be no real discussion, and there's always a particular POV to which one is supposed to adhere in order to remain on-topic for the group. It is attracting Vortexians into its spiderweb with the alluring illusion of the challenge of a 'debate'. The originator of the posting started the ball rolling by replying to his own post, Huh? Harry Veeder started this thread and didn't reply to his own post, that I can see. (He replied to some replies to his post but that's normal, or even desireable.) I don't see any commercial messages from him, either. Its all there in various 'holy books'. They all say the same basic things. They all probably came from a single source, a now lost and long forgotten 'holy book' that was actually a rule book created by our bio-engineers long ago. From this our earliest sentient ancestors about 14000 years ago Say what? Try 1,000,000 years ago. May not be quite right, but on a log scale, it'll be a lot closer than 14,000. Our earliest "sentient" ancestors, who invented clothing and fire, were not "human". That seems clear from a simple inventory of our rather peculiar physical attributes, which would be quite difficult to evolve in a world without cooked food and warm exoskins. Actually I might take issue with your use of the word "sentient" here but that's yet another off-topic argument... were instructed in ways to live in order to: survive and lead healthy lives; and not inbreed and ruin the genetic programming engineered into the homo erectus robustii that had been the seeds for alien DNA transplantation project. So did they work over the chimps, too, maybe as "practice" before the main event? If not, how on Earth do you explain the enormous similarity between our DNA and chimpanzee DNA? The instruction was most likely verbal as the newly incubated changlelings would not yet have a written language to go with their newly acquired speech ability. An original language was probably taught them before the 'code of living' was given them. Once having the knowledge necessary for successful colonization of this planet, the subjects were released into the natural environment (the 'garden of eden'). Who knows, 'eden' or some sound like it probably meant something in the alien language. The new 'men' then found .other people??!? to mate with and begin the chain of 'begats' found in every 'holy book' in the world. From there the tales diverge into fantasy, but that fantasy includes the basic teachings: don't kill each other (makes sense if one wants his 'people' to survive); don't steal; don't do genetic crimes to interfere with the DNA templates; you are a 'member of ___religion because your MOTHER was (the real code is in the mitochondria); don't eat 'unclean meats' usually meaning pork (some kind of pig DNA was probably also used to fill in certain gaps or for genetic interfacing with alien and robustian DNA somewherethis dictum appears in more than several 'holy' codexes). I mean really folks, these hucksters came to a scientific site to trash it and pollute it. Are they really so stupid as to lack the ability to concieve of an intelligence greater than themselves? Do they really believe thier own lies and dogmas so much that they are unable to imagine a successful challenge? I'm sorry, long about this point I started getting lost in the ranting... Did they think that we would fall victim to propagandists cloaked in religions? Did they think us supe
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Frederick Sparber wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Standing Bear wrote: This thread is really spam. No, this thread is just a symptom.We're sitting in the waiting room, some experimenting, most just waiting, hoping that somebody's going to jump up and shout "The Jubilee's here! I've closed the loop!" With over a half century of R&D experience and 7 patents (many still referenced) under my belt, I would say it's a symptom of ignorance, Stephen. OK, point well taken. I will stop throwing gasoline on the flames of ignorance.
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > Standing Bear wrote: > > >This thread is really spam. > > > No, this thread is just a symptom.We're sitting in the waiting room, > some experimenting, most just waiting, hoping that somebody's going to > jump up and shout "The Jubilee's here! I've closed the loop!" > With over a half century of R&D experience and 7 patents (many still referenced) under my belt, I would say it's a symptom of ignorance, Stephen. The info Jed posted on ICCF-12 suggests many areas of physics that need "brainstorming" by interested list members, to come up with experiments that can test theoies and/or the experiments that show promise. Jed's favorite topic is the Wright Brothers who married evolving I. C. engine technology with evolving glider technology. > > A few years back it looked like that was about to happen. But years > have passed, the researchers who are actively looking have gotten older, > and nobody's announced the Jubilee. > So why fiddle while Rome burns? Fire a few extra dendrites and Google up some science instead of engaging in mindless OFF TOPIC DEBATE! Fred
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
I wanted people to consider the nature and value of lust. Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > V, > Out of interest, what kicked off this whole discussion? Was somebody caught > with their pants down? > > Look the Latins, pagans and other religions don't have these Anglo-Saxon > problems a man is a man, right... So what if he's married and has an au-pair > or two? It's the double standard and it's a man's world (or take a look at > the antics of divorced older women, I guess they catch up). > > You know, St Paul really did it in for Christianity, the misogynistic little > politico. > R. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of thomas malloy > Sent: 14 December 2005 10:15 > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > > Vortexians; > > I found the response to this thread interesting, it was as if I'd > been subscribed to a religious list. > > Sexual immorality is any sexual activity other than that between a > married couple. Lust is forbidden by Yeshua. He is clearly using the > word as something stronger than something that you simply want. > > I realize that other religious systems have love your neighbor as > yourself as a tenant. There are lots of elements of the Christian > religion which had common elements in older pagan religions. There > are two ways to look at this; one is Universalism, all religions lead > to salvation, the other view is that Satan is a clever counterfeiter. > >> Harry Veeder wrote: >>> >>> >>> 1.Can a Christian lust and still be qualified to enter into the >>> Kingdom of God? > > Yes but only if you repent. > >> Otherwise, you'll need to do some purgatory time, but after that >> you're cleared for takeoff on the runway to Heaven. > > I thought that the Roman Church had repented of purgatory > >> >>> 2.Can a man or a woman lust for their mate, yet without sin? >> > > Lust implies sexual desire. This is one thing if both of the people > are single, but if one of them are married, it is sin. > >> >>> 3.Is lusting a sin? > > yes > >> >>> 4.Do you really know the difference between lust and desire? > > I think that the difference is obvious. > >>> 5.If you lust for something, would your Maker grant it to you? > > He might, if it pleases him. > >>> 6.If you caught yourself lusting should you repent of it? > > There is no forgiveness of sin without repentance. > >>> 7.Does God, Christ, and all the holy angels ever lust? > > A holy, kadosh, G-d, cannot allow that which is unholy in his > kingdom. The angels and the Sons of G-d who lusted left heaven > >>> Those who are spirit beings, those who are Holy, perfect, and righteous? > > The ones who lusted left heaven long ago and came here. According to > the Book of Enoch, they are imprisoned here awaiting judgment. > >> >> Regarding (7.): Yes, of course, angels do. See Genesis 6:1-4 for more > info. >> >> But that's a very concise treatment of the story. For a longer and >> more explicit version see 1 Enoch 6-7, followed by additional >> references throughout the following chapters up to 1 Enoch 71. (1 >> Enoch is an early first century Jewish work which appears to have >> been treated as ... um, well, gospel, > > We believe that the Enoch in the title is the Enoch mentioned in > Genesis. Noah brought a copy with him on the ark. > >> I guess you'd call it ... by many in the early Church, certainly >> including St. Jude, who quotes from it, and possibly including Paul >> himself. It was considered a sacred book by the Christian church in >> Ethiopia for centuries.) > > My rabbi agrees. > >> For a bit more on Satan/Lucipher and his feelings in various matters >> see the Life of Adam and Eve 12-16. He's apparently a very >> emotional guy, and quite proud, and feels he really got shafted by >> God. (LoA&E is also a 1st century work, which incorporates >> longstanding traditions surrounding the events in the Bible.) > > Leave it up to Lucifer to believe that. He started out with pride, > and then he lied, and then he murdered. Tonight's interviewee on C to > C AM is talking about Zachuriah Sitchens who has written a book about > some Sumerian clay tablets that he translated. He tells a story about > an extra terresterial race called the Ananaki, who created humans to > be their slaves. Sitchen's story continues with the usual New Age B > S. Sata
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
phishers and virus vendors in that they have a limited vocabulary: just like we filter on four letter words and combinations and mispellings of the same to ban porners; or filter on drug names for pushers; or filter on 'values', 'buy' or 'credit' for loansharks and hot goods pushers; religious sharks use lots of 'God' (may be not capitolized or use different names for the 'diety'), 'save' (just like salesmen), 'salvation', 'sin', 'lust' (just like porners), 'adultery' (again just like porners)you know the drill. Use enough of those and delete them and...voila...the world is clean again of their filth. And oh, yeah, if our list is really under attack, these folks won't let go easy. They will use junk in the titles and spoofed return addresses and forged headers while inundating us..just like spammers. Religious fanatics have murdured millions throughout history. It is one place our bioengineers made a mistake in our genetic code, allowing the genes for murder of one's own species members, genes that are present in today's great apes like the chimpanzees, to continue. Perhaps our bioengineers did not know these genes existed because they did not stay long enough on our planet to do more thorough studies of candidate species for aliotransplantation. One wonders if these aliens were able to time travel as well. They would then have had and yet have the ability to look in on us from time to time. Like maybe we are/were an alien tourist attraction?! But if that is true, then what does that say also about them? Certainly not anything ethically or morally good! But then if we are a tourist attraction, the 'keepers' would want to make certain that the 'animals' never get out of the cagethat is gain the ability for space travel. Maybe that is behind the present administration's sudden newfound love for old chemical rocket tech that is prone to failure. Enough rant for one day! Standing Bear On Wednesday 14 December 2005 08:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > V, > Out of interest, what kicked off this whole discussion? Was somebody caught > with their pants down? > > Look the Latins, pagans and other religions don't have these Anglo-Saxon > problems a man is a man, right... So what if he's married and has an > au-pair or two? It's the double standard and it's a man's world (or take a > look at the antics of divorced older women, I guess they catch up). > > You know, St Paul really did it in for Christianity, the misogynistic > little politico. > R. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of thomas malloy > Sent: 14 December 2005 10:15 > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > > Vortexians; > > I found the response to this thread interesting, it was as if I'd > been subscribed to a religious list. > > Sexual immorality is any sexual activity other than that between a > married couple. Lust is forbidden by Yeshua. He is clearly using the > word as something stronger than something that you simply want. > > I realize that other religious systems have love your neighbor as > yourself as a tenant. There are lots of elements of the Christian > religion which had common elements in older pagan religions. There > are two ways to look at this; one is Universalism, all religions lead > to salvation, the other view is that Satan is a clever counterfeiter. > > >Harry Veeder wrote: > >>1.Can a Christian lust and still be qualified to enter into the > >>Kingdom of God? > > Yes but only if you repent. > > >Otherwise, you'll need to do some purgatory time, but after that > >you're cleared for takeoff on the runway to Heaven. > > I thought that the Roman Church had repented of purgatory > > >>2.Can a man or a woman lust for their mate, yet without sin? > > Lust implies sexual desire. This is one thing if both of the people > are single, but if one of them are married, it is sin. > > >>3.Is lusting a sin? > > yes > > >>4.Do you really know the difference between lust and desire? > > I think that the difference is obvious. > > >>5.If you lust for something, would your Maker grant it to you? > > He might, if it pleases him. > > >>6.If you caught yourself lusting should you repent of it? > > There is no forgiveness of sin without repentance. > > >>7.Does God, Christ, and all the holy angels ever lust? > > A holy, kadosh, G-d, cannot allow that which is unholy in his > kingdom. The angels and the Sons of G-d who lusted left heaven > > >&
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
> From: thomas malloy Greetings Thomas, > Vortexians; > > I found the response to this thread interesting, it was > as if I'd been subscribed to a religious list. I think you're right on that one. (Some are complaining about this too! They might have a point.) ... > I realize that other religious systems have love your > neighbor as yourself as a tenant. There are lots of > elements of the Christian religion which had common > elements in older pagan religions. There are two ways > to look at this; one is Universalism, all religions lead > to salvation, the other view is that Satan is a clever > counterfeiter. Within the context of capitalism "brand loyalty" seems to be worth fighting for. Never the less, do you believe all those commercials you hear on the radio and TV that say not to accept the claims of other brands other than theirs as the genuine product? And then, there's the phrase: Accept no other god other than me as the true god. It would seem that within your perception of reality Satan is indeed a very clever fellow. It would seem that, for you, brand loyalty is worth fighting for (I'm not speaking in the most literal terms here), where the final body count is everything. How do you know you've chosen the right brand? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
RE: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
V, Out of interest, what kicked off this whole discussion? Was somebody caught with their pants down? Look the Latins, pagans and other religions don't have these Anglo-Saxon problems a man is a man, right... So what if he's married and has an au-pair or two? It's the double standard and it's a man's world (or take a look at the antics of divorced older women, I guess they catch up). You know, St Paul really did it in for Christianity, the misogynistic little politico. R. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of thomas malloy Sent: 14 December 2005 10:15 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible Vortexians; I found the response to this thread interesting, it was as if I'd been subscribed to a religious list. Sexual immorality is any sexual activity other than that between a married couple. Lust is forbidden by Yeshua. He is clearly using the word as something stronger than something that you simply want. I realize that other religious systems have love your neighbor as yourself as a tenant. There are lots of elements of the Christian religion which had common elements in older pagan religions. There are two ways to look at this; one is Universalism, all religions lead to salvation, the other view is that Satan is a clever counterfeiter. >Harry Veeder wrote: >> >> >>1.Can a Christian lust and still be qualified to enter into the >>Kingdom of God? Yes but only if you repent. >Otherwise, you'll need to do some purgatory time, but after that >you're cleared for takeoff on the runway to Heaven. I thought that the Roman Church had repented of purgatory > >>2.Can a man or a woman lust for their mate, yet without sin? > Lust implies sexual desire. This is one thing if both of the people are single, but if one of them are married, it is sin. > >>3.Is lusting a sin? yes > >>4.Do you really know the difference between lust and desire? I think that the difference is obvious. >>5.If you lust for something, would your Maker grant it to you? He might, if it pleases him. >>6.If you caught yourself lusting should you repent of it? There is no forgiveness of sin without repentance. >>7.Does God, Christ, and all the holy angels ever lust? A holy, kadosh, G-d, cannot allow that which is unholy in his kingdom. The angels and the Sons of G-d who lusted left heaven >>Those who are spirit beings, those who are Holy, perfect, and righteous? The ones who lusted left heaven long ago and came here. According to the Book of Enoch, they are imprisoned here awaiting judgment. > >Regarding (7.): Yes, of course, angels do. See Genesis 6:1-4 for more info. > >But that's a very concise treatment of the story. For a longer and >more explicit version see 1 Enoch 6-7, followed by additional >references throughout the following chapters up to 1 Enoch 71. (1 >Enoch is an early first century Jewish work which appears to have >been treated as ... um, well, gospel, We believe that the Enoch in the title is the Enoch mentioned in Genesis. Noah brought a copy with him on the ark. > I guess you'd call it ... by many in the early Church, certainly >including St. Jude, who quotes from it, and possibly including Paul >himself. It was considered a sacred book by the Christian church in >Ethiopia for centuries.) My rabbi agrees. >For a bit more on Satan/Lucipher and his feelings in various matters >see the Life of Adam and Eve 12-16. He's apparently a very >emotional guy, and quite proud, and feels he really got shafted by >God. (LoA&E is also a 1st century work, which incorporates >longstanding traditions surrounding the events in the Bible.) Leave it up to Lucifer to believe that. He started out with pride, and then he lied, and then he murdered. Tonight's interviewee on C to C AM is talking about Zachuriah Sitchens who has written a book about some Sumerian clay tablets that he translated. He tells a story about an extra terresterial race called the Ananaki, who created humans to be their slaves. Sitchen's story continues with the usual New Age B S. Satan has a long history of writing books which deceive people. IMHO, this is one of the finest examples of his art. >And who, by the way, ever said angels are "perfect"? A holy G-d cannot tolerate that which is unholy in his kingdom. > >> >>Don't be too quick to answer. Remember, all of our background came >>from our parents, culture, and our society. >Take yourself out of our culture and into some other where "lust" >and "sin" aren't all tangled up together and where "Christ" is just >a word with no meaning and nobody's ever heard parable
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Vortexians; I found the response to this thread interesting, it was as if I'd been subscribed to a religious list. Sexual immorality is any sexual activity other than that between a married couple. Lust is forbidden by Yeshua. He is clearly using the word as something stronger than something that you simply want. I realize that other religious systems have love your neighbor as yourself as a tenant. There are lots of elements of the Christian religion which had common elements in older pagan religions. There are two ways to look at this; one is Universalism, all religions lead to salvation, the other view is that Satan is a clever counterfeiter. Harry Veeder wrote: 1.Can a Christian lust and still be qualified to enter into the Kingdom of God? Yes but only if you repent. Otherwise, you'll need to do some purgatory time, but after that you're cleared for takeoff on the runway to Heaven. I thought that the Roman Church had repented of purgatory 2.Can a man or a woman lust for their mate, yet without sin? Lust implies sexual desire. This is one thing if both of the people are single, but if one of them are married, it is sin. 3.Is lusting a sin? yes 4.Do you really know the difference between lust and desire? I think that the difference is obvious. 5.If you lust for something, would your Maker grant it to you? He might, if it pleases him. 6.If you caught yourself lusting should you repent of it? There is no forgiveness of sin without repentance. 7.Does God, Christ, and all the holy angels ever lust? A holy, kadosh, G-d, cannot allow that which is unholy in his kingdom. The angels and the Sons of G-d who lusted left heaven Those who are spirit beings, those who are Holy, perfect, and righteous? The ones who lusted left heaven long ago and came here. According to the Book of Enoch, they are imprisoned here awaiting judgment. Regarding (7.): Yes, of course, angels do. See Genesis 6:1-4 for more info. But that's a very concise treatment of the story. For a longer and more explicit version see 1 Enoch 6-7, followed by additional references throughout the following chapters up to 1 Enoch 71. (1 Enoch is an early first century Jewish work which appears to have been treated as ... um, well, gospel, We believe that the Enoch in the title is the Enoch mentioned in Genesis. Noah brought a copy with him on the ark. I guess you'd call it ... by many in the early Church, certainly including St. Jude, who quotes from it, and possibly including Paul himself. It was considered a sacred book by the Christian church in Ethiopia for centuries.) My rabbi agrees. For a bit more on Satan/Lucipher and his feelings in various matters see the Life of Adam and Eve 12-16. He's apparently a very emotional guy, and quite proud, and feels he really got shafted by God. (LoA&E is also a 1st century work, which incorporates longstanding traditions surrounding the events in the Bible.) Leave it up to Lucifer to believe that. He started out with pride, and then he lied, and then he murdered. Tonight's interviewee on C to C AM is talking about Zachuriah Sitchens who has written a book about some Sumerian clay tablets that he translated. He tells a story about an extra terresterial race called the Ananaki, who created humans to be their slaves. Sitchen's story continues with the usual New Age B S. Satan has a long history of writing books which deceive people. IMHO, this is one of the finest examples of his art. And who, by the way, ever said angels are "perfect"? A holy G-d cannot tolerate that which is unholy in his kingdom. Don't be too quick to answer. Remember, all of our background came from our parents, culture, and our society. Take yourself out of our culture and into some other where "lust" and "sin" aren't all tangled up together and where "Christ" is just a word with no meaning and nobody's ever heard parables about the "Kingdom of Heaven", and you'll have trouble even understanding what those questions are supposed to mean. You're making several assumptions, and you know what happens when you assume. If there is no creator, and he has no interest in making the Earth holy, then you can write the story off as a parable. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
RE: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
It's called comparative religion. Religion without the b.s. magic and mysticism is called Humanitarianism. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 December 2005 19:35 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:1 Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. Analects 12:2 Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Udana-Varga 5,1 Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. Mahabharata 5,1517 Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. Sunnah Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id Taoism Regard your neighbor?s gain as your gain, and your neighbor?s loss as your own loss. Tai Shang Kan Yin P?ien Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:49:46 GMT Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible Vortexians- I am not a devout christian- But I must admit the elelgant simplicity of Christ teachings and the simple requirements to enter heaven make it the most God like of all teachings. To enter heaven one must -believe- be baptised- and do chose to do good to all others. If I don't do good I simply must ask for forgiveness and try to do better in the future. I don't have to bow a certain number times aday- I don't have to beat myself -I don't have to make a pilgramish to any where. So elegant yet so simple. _ges- ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
"I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member." -Marx http://tinyurl.com/8o99r http://tinyurl.com/3t5sd Gesundheit! -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:58:54 -0500 Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible "I've a good mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it." -- Groucho Marx in Duck Soup (1933) ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
"I've a good mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it." -- Groucho Marx in Duck Soup (1933) Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Christianity > > All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to > them; for this is the law and the prophets. > Matthew 7:1 > > Confucianism > > Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will > be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. > Analects 12:2 > > Buddhism > > Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. > Udana-Varga 5,1 > > Hinduism > > This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have > them do unto you. > Mahabharata 5,1517 > > Islam > > No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which > he desires for himself. > Sunnah > > Judaism > > What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire > Law; all the rest is commentary. > Talmud, Shabbat 3id > > Taoism > > Regard your neighbor?s gain as your gain, and your neighbor?s loss as > your own loss. > Tai Shang Kan Yin P?ien > > Zoroastrianism > > That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever > is not good for itself. > Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5 > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:49:46 GMT > Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > > Vortexians- I am not a devout christian- But I must admit > the elelgant simplicity of Christ teachings and > the simple requirements to enter heaven make it > the most God like of all teachings. > To enter heaven one must -believe- be baptised- > and do chose to do good to all others. > If I don't do good I simply must ask for forgiveness > and try to do better in the future. > I don't have to bow a certain number times aday- > I don't have to beat myself -I don't have to make a > pilgramish to any where. > So elegant yet so simple. > _ges- > > > > ___ > Try the New Netscape Mail Today! > Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List > http://mail.netscape.com >
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
OrionWorks wrote: > So. why did this work for Lincoln, but not for Nero, Stalin, > Bundy, and dozens of other people we could quickly name? It's obvious that there are many who seem to need this kind of religious structure in their lives in order to feel spiritually saved - though perhaps "spoken for" might seem a more accurate description. I see no connection between Stalin or Nero and religion, or morality for that matter. We know how to keep such people from getting power or causing harm. We use democracy, the rule of law, the police, or if all else fails, the army. These institutions have nothing to do with religion or philosophy. There are probably a million people in the U.S. who would act like Stalin or Nero given half a chance. Our institutions prevent that, so these people are no threat to us, and their personal morality is none of our business. We do not need them to reform, or believe in the golden rule, or act nice, or worship, or do anything else they are not inclined to do. They are free to spend their lives making their families miserable and engaging in unspeakable acts. All long as they do not break any major laws, who cares? Megalomaniacs are only a threat in societies such as Iraq, or Germany in 1930, where there is no firmly established democracy or rule of law. They only threaten democratic societies when the chaos they cause spills over international borderlines. Sooner or later, every country will become reasonably democratic, in one form or another. Once that happens, people like Stalin or Bin Laden will never again threaten anyone. There is no need to change human nature, pray for universal enlightenment, or wait for a better class of homo sapiens to evolve. People -- just as they are now, with all their faults intact -- can construct a world that is immune to war and extreme tyranny. Petty tyrants and fools will probably always be with us. - Jed
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
>> http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Abraham-Lincoln/1/ >> >> Scroll down to around the 22nd phrase and read: >> >> "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. >> And that's my religion." - Lincoln > So. why did this work for Lincoln, but not for Nero, Stalin, > Bundy, and dozens of other people we could quickly name? Do > you think these guys felt bad about what they did? Maybe > they even felt good about it! Do you think there is any > limit to the horrors that an unrestrained human mind can > justify? History seems to say no. > We all exercise self restraint on a nearly continuous basis, > and we do this to a set of internal behavioral standards that > are constantly being updated. Updates that raise our standards > are generally the result of receiving and accepting instruction. > Standards may also be modified (usually downward) by > circumstances that affect us. A trivial example is: standing > around the water cooler for 20 minutes during the 10 minute > break. Do you go back to your desk after 10 minutes or do you > hang out longer? If the guys get away with it week after week, > circumstances may lead you to a reduction in personal standards. > A sharp word from the boss will bump everyones standard back up, > at least temporarily. We all know which fellow worker will be >the one to push the envelope again a few days later. > > Is "reduction of behavioral standards" a suitable definition > for the word "corruption"? Here's a quote. I don't recall > who said it. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Nero and > Stalin had it on a national level, Bundy had it on a personal > level. How do we avoid corruption in our lives on any level? > It is fairly easy to see corruption in others. How do we > identify it in ourselves? Identification is surely the first > step toward fixing it. What would the next step be? > > Jeff In my view you have asked an important question but have not followed through with: Why DID it work for Lincoln, as compared to Bundy, Stalin, or Nero. Obviously, it works better for some than others. It's obvious that there are many who seem to need this kind of religious structure in their lives in order to feel spiritually saved - though perhaps "spoken for" might seem a more accurate description. OTOH, there are also many others who don't need this kind of religious structure in their lives order to feel spiritually saved. Many of them who don't need this structure in their lives also deeply resent being told by those who feel they have been "saved" that what "saved" them must, by default, apply to them as well, as if they know what's best for them. I acknowledge the fact that your belief in being saved by Jesus is a genuine one. I have no desire in persuading you from it. It works for you. Unfortunately for me, it is pretty much those beliefs attributed to the great man, Jesus, that does nothing for my spiritual salvation. For me, it's absurd to believe that Jesus could absolve me from my sins - even temporarily. He isn't responsible for my actions, and never was. I also don't ever recall asking Jesus to take on the role of a poster spiritual whipping boy and I refuse to be guilt tripped into assuming that for my own spiritual salvation I ought to. Regarding Sin: Have I sinned? Of course I have. In the end I'm the one who must ultimately pay the price for my sins, and hopefully any good deeds I may have committed as well. It seems as if much of the Christian religious doctrine treats the crucifixion of Jesus more like one gigantic spiritual credit card transaction where the "sins" of humanity were only temporarily paid "in-full" on credit - as if humanity went out on an uncontrollable buying binge to BEST BUY and picked up the most expensive plasma HDTVs money can buy. But now...watch out for those end-of-the-month payments. For me, to have Jesus assume my sins by dieing on the cross cheapens the selfless act of what Jesus performed. What I see is that Jesus turned the other cheek - and paid the ultimate price for his bravery. I feel bad that such terrible badness was done unto him. It inspires me to want to behave better towards my fellow man and womankind. I don't always succeed. Concerning my own spiritual welfare I think it dubious to buy into heavenly transactions of such seriousness where one's "sins" have allegedly been temporarily paid-in full on credit. Cuz, as we all know, the longer you take to pay off the balance... the interest alone will eventually do you in. * * * * * You ask many other interesting questions, particularly on personal "corruption" and how one goes about fixing it, or is there something greater than oneself that can be tapped into or yielded to, but for now, I've contributed enough OT rhetoric to fill the bottom of a bird cage. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:1 Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. Analects 12:2 Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Udana-Varga 5,1 Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. Mahabharata 5,1517 Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. Sunnah Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id Taoism Regard your neighbor?s gain as your gain, and your neighbor?s loss as your own loss. Tai Shang Kan Yin P?ien Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:49:46 GMT Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible Vortexians- I am not a devout christian- But I must admit the elelgant simplicity of Christ teachings and the simple requirements to enter heaven make it the most God like of all teachings. To enter heaven one must -believe- be baptised- and do chose to do good to all others. If I don't do good I simply must ask for forgiveness and try to do better in the future. I don't have to bow a certain number times aday- I don't have to beat myself -I don't have to make a pilgramish to any where. So elegant yet so simple. _ges- ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Vortexians- I am not a devout christian- But I must admit the elelgant simplicity of Christ teachings and the simple requirements to enter heaven make it the most God like of all teachings. To enter heaven one must -believe- be baptised- and do chose to do good to all others. If I don't do good I simply must ask for forgiveness and try to do better in the future. I don't have to bow a certain number times aday- I don't have to beat myself -I don't have to make a pilgramish to any where. So elegant yet so simple. _ges-
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
I think Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell make good point the "one flesh" thing but the "one flesh" reference misses the point. Leviticus is were the action is and it includes things like quarantine, antiseptics (Hyssop and cedar oil) both known antibacterial agents that have never produced immune strains of bugs. I need to focus on the fusion work for a while but if your interested in the subject read R. J. Rushdoony's books on the subject he is quite good. http://www.chalcedonstore.com/xcart/home.php More below, I couldn't resist. : Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: We are, as Hamlet put it, noble in reason, infinite in faculties, the paragon of animals. We have done nothing wrong and we have nothing to be ashamed of. Here one must ask, does this grand and supremely innocent "We..." include the young George Bush feeding firecrackers to frogs to watch them blow up? Hey, we're predators. What would you expect? Besides, I don't believe in collective guilt. George was not a Christian in his child hood he's a recent convert. Many in the western world are what we in the church call nominal Christians, people who are born into the history and traditions without knowing God or understanding any doctrine. World Christianity is divided into what we call the visible church: with a mix of denominations and creeds, with people who are well meaning but very nominal Christians, a few saints, and a lot of others that are a waste of a good pew. There's a few that are truly dangerous. The church invisible is the body of true believers inside all the various denominations. They have sound doctrine and work hard to win souls. There often too busy to try to run the show, sometimes that is a mistake, allowing others to rise to the top. The church invisible includes a few outside the formal church who for one reason or another have found God but still can't find a church that is worth attending. There are many hidden in communist countries and the moslem arc who can't go public with their faith because of persecution. PS I'm not a Roman Catholic and you might guess I think the Vatican has a lot more of the visible [very] church in it and a lot less of the church invisible church than it thinks ;-) . One might, with some effort, come up with a few other things for which the human species has been responsible which some might view as worthy of some small amount of shame, I think... Sure, but most us had nothing to do with these atrocities. Look, every healthy person feels some degree of existential guilt. You look around, you see people suffering, and you can't help but blame yourself partly. That's natural. It is okay -- even beneficial. Empathy is bred into us; group hunting predators take care of helpless pack members. What I object to is people who exploit that feeling. They enslave other people's minds with fear, based on hocus-pocus superstition and balderdash. They compound the problem by making people feel guilty about feeling guilty. They make life even more miserable than it is already. They rob people of dignity, hope and self-respect. They frighten little children. They incite the public to hate and fear science, which is our only hope for a decent, humane future. And for what? Only to empower themselves, or make a profit, or to spread their own warped, defeatist, guilt-ridden, irrational traditions to the next generation. Of course I know that many religious people never engage in this sort of behavior. Many are wonderful people, and for that matter many scientists are heartless wretches. I have no use for religion myself, but in most people it is a harmless eccentricity, no worse than a passion for Contract Bridge. By the way, there is an interesting article in the New York Times Magazine about antipathy toward science: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11wwln_lead.html It's interesting that antipathy towards science was lowest when the church was stronger in the 1950's and antipathy is strong now that the church is weak and the new age stuff is pushing into the mainstream. There's a whole other debate to be had there but I have a few dozen ICCF12 papers to find and read. Not to mention a letter to a politician on "live embryo transplant" ectogenesis as an alternative to abortion. Wish me luck I'll really need it on that one. bye from wesley.
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
> http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Abraham-Lincoln/1/ > > Scroll down to around the 22nd phrase and read: > > "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that's my religion." - Lincoln So. why did this work for Lincoln, but not for Nero, Stalin, Bundy, and dozens of other people we could quickly name? Do you think these guys felt bad about what they did? Maybe they even felt good about it! Do you think there is any limit to the horrors that an unrestrained human mind can justify? History seems to say no. We all exercise self restraint on a nearly continuous basis, and we do this to a set of internal behavioral standards that are constantly being updated. Updates that raise our standards are generally the result of receiving and accepting instruction. Standards may also be modified (usually downward) by circumstances that affect us. A trivial example is: standing around the water cooler for 20 minutes during the 10 minute break. Do you go back to your desk after 10 minutes or do you hang out longer? If the guys get away with it week after week, circumstances may lead you to a reduction in personal standards. A sharp word from the boss will bump everyones standard back up, at least temporarily. We all know which fellow worker will be the one to push the envelope again a few days later. Is "reduction of behavioral standards" a suitable definition for the word "corruption"? Here's a quote. I don't recall who said it. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Nero and Stalin had it on a national level, Bundy had it on a personal level. How do we avoid corruption in our lives on any level? It is fairly easy to see corruption in others. How do we identify it in ourselves? Identification is surely the first step toward fixing it. What would the next step be? Jeff
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: We are, as Hamlet put it, noble in reason, infinite in faculties, the paragon of animals. We have done nothing wrong and we have nothing to be ashamed of. Here one must ask, does this grand and supremely innocent "We..." include the young George Bush feeding firecrackers to frogs to watch them blow up? Hey, we're predators. What would you expect? Besides, I don't believe in collective guilt. One might, with some effort, come up with a few other things for which the human species has been responsible which some might view as worthy of some small amount of shame, I think... Sure, but most us had nothing to do with these atrocities. Look, every healthy person feels some degree of existential guilt. You look around, you see people suffering, and you can't help but blame yourself partly. That's natural. It is okay -- even beneficial. Empathy is bred into us; group hunting predators take care of helpless pack members. What I object to is people who exploit that feeling. They enslave other people's minds with fear, based on hocus-pocus superstition and balderdash. They compound the problem by making people feel guilty about feeling guilty. They make life even more miserable than it is already. They rob people of dignity, hope and self-respect. They frighten little children. They incite the public to hate and fear science, which is our only hope for a decent, humane future. And for what? Only to empower themselves, or make a profit, or to spread their own warped, defeatist, guilt-ridden, irrational traditions to the next generation. Of course I know that many religious people never engage in this sort of behavior. Many are wonderful people, and for that matter many scientists are heartless wretches. I have no use for religion myself, but in most people it is a harmless eccentricity, no worse than a passion for Contract Bridge. By the way, there is an interesting article in the New York Times Magazine about antipathy toward science: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11wwln_lead.html - Jed
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Jed Rothwell wrote: revtec wrote: We are all buried under a mountain of bad things we have commited, and each day, inspite of our best efforts, we continue to add to it. Do we want to justify this pile of crap in front of God at the Judgement or should we put it under the blood of Jesus and have it lifted from us? Many aspects of religion strike me as creepy, but none more than this attitude. This debasement and belittling of the human species is sick, sick, sick. Well put. My wife, who, in reaction to that attitude, has recently dragged the family out of the traditional church of which we were members and over to the UU church down the road, could not have said it more clearly or succinctly. Jesus as the "lamb of God", the "blood of the Lamb" ... anybody here ever attended an actual animal sacrifice? That's what the "Lamb of God" business is all about, you know; that's a _sacrificial_ "lamb of God". Furthermore, the "Lamb Upon the Throne" is supposed to be a _human_ sacrifice, to appease a God who was ticked off at everybody at the time. One could say that Jesus was actually redeeming the animals, not the humans, since it's the animals who got their throats cut in the name of God in the old temple Judaism; by his sacrifice of himself he saved the sheep and doves from that same fate. (In reality, of course, it was the Romans who saved the sheep and doves, by razing the temple -- but it was only a temporary fix, they're rebuilding it again.) First century Christians understood all this perfectly well, since animal sacrifice was still current, and human sacrifice was something that had happened in relatively recent history. Nowadays we need to do a double-take to realize what the words and symbols actually mean. Going slightly farther off-topic, for a good time, read how cows are slaughtered in a kosher slaughterhouse. They have to follow roughly the same rules as those which governed animal sacrifice, including the no-broken-bones rule, which means the normal methods of killing the cattle can't be used. We are, as Hamlet put it, noble in reason, infinite in faculties, the paragon of animals. We have done nothing wrong and we have nothing to be ashamed of. Here one must ask, does this grand and supremely innocent "We..." include the young George Bush feeding firecrackers to frogs to watch them blow up? One might, with some effort, come up with a few other things for which the human species has been responsible which some might view as worthy of some small amount of shame, I think... but I'm not sure any of them are proscribed by the Bible, come to think of it. To quote Bertrand Russell: "We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create." - Jed
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
>From revtec: ... > We are all buried under a mountain of bad things we have > commited, and each day, inspite of our best efforts, we > continue to add to it. Do we want to justify this pile > of crap in front of God at the Judgement or should we put > it under the blood of Jesus and have it lifted from us? > Jesus paid the price for all of our sin: past, present, > and future. Out of reverence, respect, and gratitude, we > must try to minimize the future stuff. God's salvation > plan is so simple tha many people consider it too good to > be true. It may be simple, but it is not easy. Salvation > is free but it was not cheap. Can you imagine a God so > loving that He would allow Himself to be murdered by His > own creation in order to save it? Would God have the right > to be angry with those who reject this plan? > > Jeff I have always detested this line of reasoning. It creates massive guilt trips and is extremely manipulative. While I'm not an atheist I can appreciate why many prefer atheism, particularly when they are confronted with this kind of prevalent reasoning within our society. Regarding "sin" I'm often inspired by the simplicity of one of Lincoln's more succulent quotes. See: http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Abraham-Lincoln/1/ Scroll down to around the 22nd phrase and read: "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that's my religion." - Lincoln Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
revtec wrote: We are all buried under a mountain of bad things we have commited, and each day, inspite of our best efforts, we continue to add to it. Do we want to justify this pile of crap in front of God at the Judgement or should we put it under the blood of Jesus and have it lifted from us? Many aspects of religion strike me as creepy, but none more than this attitude. This debasement and belittling of the human species is sick, sick, sick. We are, as Hamlet put it, noble in reason, infinite in faculties, the paragon of animals. We have done nothing wrong and we have nothing to be ashamed of. To quote Bertrand Russell: "We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create." - Jed
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
- Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:21 PM Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > > > Edmund Storms wrote: > > > > > > > revtec wrote: > > > >> - Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: > >> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 4:43 PM > >> Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > >> > >> > >> > >>>> I admire your effort to calculate the size of the common flesh pool, > >>> > >>> > >>> which essentially makes us all brothers and sisters in sex. However, > >>> was > >>> Paul not using this concept as a quaint way to describe making a baby? > >>> > >>> Ed > >> > >> > >> > >> I don't think so. Here is the verse in New King James version: I > >> Corinthian > >> 6:16 > >> > >> Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with > >> her? > >> For "the two" He says, "shall become one flesh." > > > > > > We all know that we do not become literally one flesh when we have > > sex. We do not even join in any spiritual way. The act is simply the > > sharing of pleasure, except if a child results. The only time "one > > flesh" results is when love is present before the act. Therefore, > > this way of describing the sex act must have a nonliteral meaning. > > What do you think the nonliteral meaning might be? > > Keep in mind that "transubstantiation" of the mass was accepted as real > among the early Christians. Similarly, your 21st century notion that > there is no physical alteration of the flesh of the partners either as > a result of intercourse or as a result of undergoing the marriage > ceremony should be viewed as anachronistic when attempting to interpret > the words of Paul. > > Furthermore, you must be a little careful when reading what Paul had to > say about sex. It's been a while since I went through those sections of > the Bible with any care, but as I recall Paul is a big-time prude and > appeared to have some major hangups in the area. I would hesitate a > long time before I'd rule out an interpretation of what he had to say on > the grounds that it doesn't sound reasonable! His point about being single makes sense. He is saying that a single man can spend his life pleasing God, while a married man must spend much of his life pleasing his wife. See 1st Cor 7:33 > > Specifically, IIRC, he says (in one of the early, undisputed letters) > that you should avoid sex entirely if possible. But, he goes on, if, > unlike Paul himself (!!), you find that difficult, you should take the > next-best choice and get married so you can have an outlet for your > passions. He's not, as I recall, totally judgmental about it but his > POV doesn't seem quite normal to me. > > With that said, I don't think he was telling folks not to fornicate > because it makes illegitimate babies, any more than he was telling men > not to have sex with men for that reason. And as to his statement that > we "become one flesh", he took it as "really symbolically true" AFAICT > which is to say it meant _something_ of importance to him, but what it > means isn't exactly clear! Note well that this same line is quoted > someplace or other in support of the notion that divorce should not be > allowed. Jesus clarified the full extent of the Law on this subject when He said "Any man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew. 5:32). Paul added more clarification in Romans 7:2-3 to the extent that, divorce or not, a woman is bound to her husband until he dies. But, we who choose to be under the grace of God thru the Blood of Jesus are not under the law. We are unable to keep the Law. The Law shows us what sin is, but does not enable us to rise above it. As Paul said in Romans 7:10 "The commandment that was to bring life, I found to bring death". He goes on to say, "The Law is spiritual, but we are carnal..For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do..Oh wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death." We are all buried under a mountain of bad things we have commited, and each day, inspite of our best efforts, we continue to add to it. Do we want to justify this pile of crap in front of God at the Judgement or should we put it under the blood of Jesus and have it lifted from us? Jesus paid the price for all of our sin: past, present, and future. Out of reverence, respect, and gratitude, we must try to minimize the future stuff. God's salvation plan is so simple tha many people consider it too good to be true. It may be simple, but it is not easy. Salvation is free but it was not cheap. Can you imagine a God so loving that He would allow Himself to be murdered by His own creation in order to save it? Would God have the right to be angry with those who reject this plan? Jeff
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Vortexians-Do you think its possible that Paul was refering to one flesh in relationship to disease. I am sure there was Vd back then and being of one flesh would mean it would share the diseases of one another.- Ges-
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
> Edmund Storms wrote: > >> >> >> revtec wrote: >> >>> - Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: >>> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 4:43 PM >>> Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible >>> >>> >>> Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with >>> her? >>> For "the two" He says, "shall become one flesh." >> >> >> We all know that we do not become literally one flesh when we have >> sex. We do not even join in any spiritual way. The act is simply the >> sharing of pleasure, except if a child results. The only time "one >> flesh" results is when love is present before the act. Therefore, >> this way of describing the sex act must have a nonliteral meaning. >> What do you think the nonliteral meaning might be? How about two become electrically one? Harry
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
At 10:21 pm 11/12/2005 -0500, Stephen wrote: > Keep in mind that "transubstantiation" of the mass > was accepted as real among the early Christians. And still is by the vast majority of Christians (myself included) I am happy to say. 8-) Frank Grimer
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Harry Veeder wrote: from http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/covet.html To Covet and Lust can be Good, not Evil Let¹s begin with a quiz of the following questions: 1.Can a Christian lust and still be qualified to enter into the Kingdom of God? Yes but only if you buy an indulgence, or, if you can't afford that, make a novena. Otherwise, you'll need to do some purgatory time, but after that you're cleared for takeoff on the runway to Heaven. 2.Can a man or a woman lust for their mate, yet without sin? Who's without sin, anyway? You can't do _anything_ without sin, it's original equipment, comes from the manufacturer pre-installed. 3.Is lusting a sin? 4.Do you really know the difference between lust and desire? 5.If you lust for something, would your Maker grant it to you? 6.If you caught yourself lusting should you repent of it? 7.Does God, Christ, and all the holy angels ever lust? Those who are spirit beings, those who are Holy, perfect, and righteous? Regarding (7.): Yes, of course, angels do. See Genesis 6:1-4 for more info. But that's a very concise treatment of the story. For a longer and more explicit version see 1 Enoch 6-7, followed by additional references throughout the following chapters up to 1 Enoch 71. (1 Enoch is an early first century Jewish work which appears to have been treated as ... um, well, gospel, I guess you'd call it ... by many in the early Church, certainly including St. Jude, who quotes from it, and possibly including Paul himself. It was considered a sacred book by the Christian church in Ethiopia for centuries.) For a bit more on Satan/Lucipher and his feelings in various matters see the Life of Adam and Eve 12-16. He's apparently a very emotional guy, and quite proud, and feels he really got shafted by God. (LoA&E is also a 1st century work, which incorporates longstanding traditions surrounding the events in the Bible.) And who, by the way, ever said angels are "perfect"? Don¹t be too quick to answer. Remember, all of our background came from our parents, culture, and our society. Well, duh, you're asking questions about our culture here, I'd hope the background which we need to answer them would come from the culture itself! Take yourself out of our culture and into some other where "lust" and "sin" aren't all tangled up together and where "Christ" is just a word with no meaning and nobody's ever heard parables about the "Kingdom of Heaven", and you'll have trouble even understanding what those questions are supposed to mean. God condemns the use of any thing, any thought, and any attitude that is harmful to you or your neighbor. But he will never condemn the right use of any good thing that he himself has created. Remember what God said about all those things he created? "It was very good" (Genesis 1:31). He didn¹t say it was bad, not a mixture of truth and error, but very good. "Covet" and "Lust" are Neutral Words The adversary has deceived men into believing that sex, lust, coveting, pleasure, sensuality, and feeling good is evil; yet, when God created all things he said "it was very good" (Genesis 1:31 ). Who are you going to believe? Christians desire, lust for, and covet after the Knowledge and Wisdom of God, which is good. Sensuality, like lust, is purely neutral. What you do with it determines whether you sin or not. Sex with strangers is not good, but sex with your spouse is. There is nothing wrong with lusting. Do you lust for your wife, or do you lust for somebody else¹s wife? This is the point. The Law does not say, "Do not covet", it says do not covet anything that belongs to somebody else (Exodus 20:17). Your arch enemy would always like you to blur the difference and remove the boundaries between the holy and the profane, between the light and darkness. That¹s why the Creator told Adam and Eve to eat of every tree that is in the garden, except of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! You see, if someone gives you a glass of pure crystal clear sweet water, that¹s good. But if you put a few drops of poison into it, that¹s bad. And the bad makes the whole thing bad. And therefore the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is all bad, because poison will kill you, it takes time. Good and evil is not good, it is sinful. And therefore, to have a morality that is a mixture of good and evil is a sinful morality. That¹s why we are studying the Word of God, because we are admitting that we are not clean, pure, righteous, perfect, but we want to be. And so we should not be offended at the words of God when they simply be contrary to what we think. Positive examples in Scripture In the Hebrew, "lust" (#08378 ta'avah & #0183 'avah) is defined as "to desire eagerly, to long for, to wish, to crave, to covet, to yearn, to be eager to, to have an appetite for." Lust could be used righ
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Edmund Storms wrote: revtec wrote: - Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 4:43 PM Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible I admire your effort to calculate the size of the common flesh pool, which essentially makes us all brothers and sisters in sex. However, was Paul not using this concept as a quaint way to describe making a baby? Ed I don't think so. Here is the verse in New King James version: I Corinthian 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two" He says, "shall become one flesh." We all know that we do not become literally one flesh when we have sex. We do not even join in any spiritual way. The act is simply the sharing of pleasure, except if a child results. The only time "one flesh" results is when love is present before the act. Therefore, this way of describing the sex act must have a nonliteral meaning. What do you think the nonliteral meaning might be? Keep in mind that "transubstantiation" of the mass was accepted as real among the early Christians. Similarly, your 21st century notion that there is no physical alteration of the flesh of the partners either as a result of intercourse or as a result of undergoing the marriage ceremony should be viewed as anachronistic when attempting to interpret the words of Paul. Furthermore, you must be a little careful when reading what Paul had to say about sex. It's been a while since I went through those sections of the Bible with any care, but as I recall Paul is a big-time prude and appeared to have some major hangups in the area. I would hesitate a long time before I'd rule out an interpretation of what he had to say on the grounds that it doesn't sound reasonable! Specifically, IIRC, he says (in one of the early, undisputed letters) that you should avoid sex entirely if possible. But, he goes on, if, unlike Paul himself (!!), you find that difficult, you should take the next-best choice and get married so you can have an outlet for your passions. He's not, as I recall, totally judgmental about it but his POV doesn't seem quite normal to me. With that said, I don't think he was telling folks not to fornicate because it makes illegitimate babies, any more than he was telling men not to have sex with men for that reason. And as to his statement that we "become one flesh", he took it as "really symbolically true" AFAICT which is to say it meant _something_ of importance to him, but what it means isn't exactly clear! Note well that this same line is quoted someplace or other in support of the notion that divorce should not be allowed. Ed Jeff
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
At 08:09 pm 11/12/2005 -0500, Jeff wrote: >The idea of becoming one flesh with every sex partner you ever had, in >addition to being one flesh with your wife, is perhaps just a way for Paul >to help us visualize how bad he thinks it is to have sex outside of >marriage. However, is it not possible or even likely that casual sex can >have harmful effects on a person at three levels: physical, mental and >spiritual. > >In the context of verses 9 to the end of the chapter, it is a disgrace to >us, and dishonoring to God, to conduct ourselves in a promiscuous way. We >must keep in mind that Paul is addressing believers who have accepted Jesus' >sacrifice on the cross as the full penalty paid for their crimes against >God. For us to continue in that behavior after being saved is, to say the >least, not good. > >Jeff I couldn't have put it better myself, Jeff. 8-) Frank
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
- Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:17 PM Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > > > revtec wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 4:43 PM > > Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > > > > > > > >>>I admire your effort to calculate the size of the common flesh pool, > >> > >>which essentially makes us all brothers and sisters in sex. However, was > >>Paul not using this concept as a quaint way to describe making a baby? > >> > >>Ed > > > > > > I don't think so. Here is the verse in New King James version: I Corinthian > > 6:16 > > > > Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? > > For "the two" He says, "shall become one flesh." > > We all know that we do not become literally one flesh when we have sex. > We do not even join in any spiritual way. The act is simply the sharing > of pleasure, except if a child results. The only time "one flesh" > results is when love is present before the act. Therefore, this way of > describing the sex act must have a nonliteral meaning. What do you > think the nonliteral meaning might be? The idea of becoming one flesh with every sex partner you ever had, in addition to being one flesh with your wife, is perhaps just a way for Paul to help us visualize how bad he thinks it is to have sex outside of marriage. However, is it not possible or even likely that casual sex can have harmful effects on a person at three levels: physical, mental and spiritual. In the context of verses 9 to the end of the chapter, it is a disgrace to us, and dishonoring to God, to conduct ourselves in a promiscuous way. We must keep in mind that Paul is addressing believers who have accepted Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as the full penalty paid for their crimes against God. For us to continue in that behavior after being saved is, to say the least, not good. Jeff
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
revtec wrote: - Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 4:43 PM Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible I admire your effort to calculate the size of the common flesh pool, which essentially makes us all brothers and sisters in sex. However, was Paul not using this concept as a quaint way to describe making a baby? Ed I don't think so. Here is the verse in New King James version: I Corinthian 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two" He says, "shall become one flesh." We all know that we do not become literally one flesh when we have sex. We do not even join in any spiritual way. The act is simply the sharing of pleasure, except if a child results. The only time "one flesh" results is when love is present before the act. Therefore, this way of describing the sex act must have a nonliteral meaning. What do you think the nonliteral meaning might be? Ed Jeff
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
- Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 4:43 PM Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible >> I admire your effort to calculate the size of the common flesh pool, > which essentially makes us all brothers and sisters in sex. However, was > Paul not using this concept as a quaint way to describe making a baby? > > Ed I don't think so. Here is the verse in New King James version: I Corinthian 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two" He says, "shall become one flesh." Jeff
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
revtec wrote: - Original Message - From: "Wesley Bruce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:26 AM Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible The authors of this site aren't making the case why sex with strangers is bad. They just say its bad and I think thats hazardous in this age. VD and family conflict is the reason for the rules. It is interesting to note that the Bible does not state the above mentioned reasons for avoiding adultry and fornication. The only reason I can find is written by Paul in the NT when he points out that we become "one flesh" with the people we have sex with just as a husband and wife become one flesh. I admire your effort to calculate the size of the common flesh pool, which essentially makes us all brothers and sisters in sex. However, was Paul not using this concept as a quaint way to describe making a baby? Ed That made me consider the concept of a "sexual network index". One's index number can be calculated by first adding up all the sex partners one has had and then, considering each of those partners one by one, add all of the people they have had sex with prior. The addition process is carried on step by step back through history until complete. Unfortunately the calculation process for many people soon breaks down to a form of gross estimating leading to a situation where one has to place a collection of zeros to the end of the calculated number. For people who believe in a 6,000 year creation time table, a half dozen zeros is probably enough. For people believing the evolutionary time frame, another couple of zeros may be in order. The index concept allows one to appreciate the rampent expanse of promiscuity, and the tremendous pools of common flesh that exist in the world. Jeff
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
- Original Message - From: "Wesley Bruce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:26 AM Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > The authors of this site aren't making the case why sex with strangers > is bad. They just say its bad and I think thats hazardous in this age. > VD and family conflict is the reason for the rules. It is interesting to note that the Bible does not state the above mentioned reasons for avoiding adultry and fornication. The only reason I can find is written by Paul in the NT when he points out that we become "one flesh" with the people we have sex with just as a husband and wife become one flesh. That made me consider the concept of a "sexual network index". One's index number can be calculated by first adding up all the sex partners one has had and then, considering each of those partners one by one, add all of the people they have had sex with prior. The addition process is carried on step by step back through history until complete. Unfortunately the calculation process for many people soon breaks down to a form of gross estimating leading to a situation where one has to place a collection of zeros to the end of the calculated number. For people who believe in a 6,000 year creation time table, a half dozen zeros is probably enough. For people believing the evolutionary time frame, another couple of zeros may be in order. The index concept allows one to appreciate the rampent expanse of promiscuity, and the tremendous pools of common flesh that exist in the world. Jeff
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Bravissimo, Sig. Krivit!! -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit 1. Can a Christian lust and still be qualified to enter into the Kingdom of God? 1. Yes, if he figures out how to make cold fusion work while he is on earth. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Good site you've found Harry but way way off topic I'll take hours to check it out. The excerpt page below while technically correct it still needs work. The ‘who are we’ page of the site worries me a little. They've never been on a good theological collage campus it seems. I can answer the first 7 questions but as it notes a quick answer may not be a correct one. Remember the words have changed meaning over time and its unwise to ascribe modern meanings to biblical words. The Hebrew in genesis indicates desire without greed. With Sin entering the picture harmless desire became potentially selfish and thus harmful lusts. That's why God made cloths for them. The authors of this site aren't making the case why sex with strangers is bad. They just say its bad and I think thats hazardous in this age. VD and family conflict is the reason for the rules. A good book to read is: None of these diseases The Bible’s health secrets for the 21st century by S.I. McMillen, MD & David E Stern, MD. Morality is not arbitrary it is precautionary. Harry Veeder wrote: from http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/covet.html To Covet and Lust can be Good, not Evil Let¹s begin with a quiz of the following questions: 1. Can a Christian lust and still be qualified to enter into the Kingdom of God? 2. Can a man or a woman lust for their mate, yet without sin? 3. Is lusting a sin? 4. Do you really know the difference between lust and desire? 5. If you lust for something, would your Maker grant it to you? 6. If you caught yourself lusting should you repent of it? 7. Does God, Christ, and all the holy angels ever lust? Those who are spirit beings, those who are Holy, perfect, and righteous? Don¹t be too quick to answer. Remember, all of our background came from our parents, culture, and our society. God condemns the use of any thing, any thought, and any attitude that is harmful to you or your neighbor. But he will never condemn the right use of any good thing that he himself has created. Remember what God said about all those things he created? "It was very good" (Genesis 1:31). He didn¹t say it was bad, not a mixture of truth and error, but very good. "Covet" and "Lust" are Neutral Words The adversary has deceived men into believing that sex, lust, coveting, pleasure, sensuality, and feeling good is evil; yet, when God created all things he said "it was very good" (Genesis 1:31 ). Who are you going to believe? Christians desire, lust for, and covet after the Knowledge and Wisdom of God, which is good. Sensuality, like lust, is purely neutral. What you do with it determines whether you sin or not. Sex with strangers is not good, but sex with your spouse is. There is nothing wrong with lusting. Do you lust for your wife, or do you lust for somebody else¹s wife? This is the point. The Law does not say, "Do not covet", it says do not covet anything that belongs to somebody else (Exodus 20:17). Your arch enemy would always like you to blur the difference and remove the boundaries between the holy and the profane, between the light and darkness. That¹s why the Creator told Adam and Eve to eat of every tree that is in the garden, except of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! You see, if someone gives you a glass of pure crystal clear sweet water, that¹s good. But if you put a few drops of poison into it, that¹s bad. And the bad makes the whole thing bad. And therefore the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is all bad, because poison will kill you, it takes time. Good and evil is not good, it is sinful. And therefore, to have a morality that is a mixture of good and evil is a sinful morality. That¹s why we are studying the Word of God, because we are admitting that we are not clean, pure, righteous, perfect, but we want to be. And so we should not be offended at the words of God when they simply be contrary to what we think. Positive examples in Scripture In the Hebrew, "lust" (#08378 ta'avah & #0183 'avah) is defined as "to desire eagerly, to long for, to wish, to crave, to covet, to yearn, to be eager to, to have an appetite for." Lust could be used rightly or wrongly. By itself it is neutral. Whether lust is good or bad should be determined only by your Maker, and not by mere, fallible, mortal man, who doesn¹t even have a clean mind! Positive examples of "lust" in the Bible are: * Deuteronomy 14:26 (lusteth) where God commanded the Israelites to turn the tithes into money and spend it on whatever their soul lusts for; * Psalm 21:2 (desire) where God satisfies your lusts if they are good and right for you; * Psalm 132:13 (desired) where the Lord himself lusted Zion for his habitation; * Proverbs 10:24 (desire) where the lust of the righteous shall be granted; * Proverbs 11:23 (desire) where the lust of the righteous is good, and this is in contrast to the lust of the wicked; * Proverbs 13:12 (desire) where
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Title: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible RC Macaulay wrote: Hi Harry, One would consider that after all the research you have done on the subject, you would give us answers instead of questions. Hi Richard, It is not my research, but the web page concludes by saying, "Only the context can tell you which way it goes." Anyway, the notion of lust is not entirely off topic for a fringe physics forum. I think Newton erred by over extending the principle of inertia. As I see it, the principle only holds during a collision. Inertia is a body lusting for itself, and to the opposing body this appears as a force. Before and after a collision, the body returns to lusting for other bodies. If the principle of inertia ceases to hold between material collisions then Newton's problem of "action at a distance" does not arise. Harry
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 9:34 PM Subject: OffTopic: Lust and the bible 1. Can a Christian lust and still be qualified to enter into the Kingdom of God? 1. Yes, if he figures out how to make cold fusion work while he is on earth. 2. Can a man or a woman lust for their mate, yet without sin? 2. Only in a house powered by cold fusion. 3. Is lusting a sin? 3. It depends on the energy consumed and the energy generated. 4. Do you really know the difference between lust and desire? 4. If you have a good calorimeter, it is easy to tell. 5. If you lust for something, would your Maker grant it to you? 5. Yes, if it is clean and without harmful waste. 6. If you caught yourself lusting should you repent of it? 6. Only if someone saw you. 7. Does God, Christ, and all the holy angels ever lust? Those who are spirit beings, those who are Holy, perfect, and righteous? 7. Inevitably, like cold fusion, lust is part of nature and all beings. s
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Title: OffTopic: Lust and the bible Hi Harry, One would consider that after all the research you have done on the subject, you would give us answers instead of questions. Richard - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 9:34 PM Subject: OffTopic: Lust and the bible fromhttp://www.ecclesia.org/truth/covet.htmlTo Covet and Lust can be Good, not EvilLet¹s begin with a quiz of the following questions:1. Can a Christian lust and still be qualified to enter into the Kingdom of God? 2. Can a man or a woman lust for their mate, yet without sin? 3. Is lusting a sin? 4. Do you really know the difference between lust and desire? 5. If you lust for something, would your Maker grant it to you? 6. If you caught yourself lusting should you repent of it? 7. Does God, Christ, and all the holy angels ever lust? Those who are spirit beings, those who are Holy, perfect, and righteous?Don¹t be too quick to answer. Remember, all of our background came from our parents, culture, and our society. God condemns the use of any thing, any thought, and any attitude that is harmful to you or your neighbor. But he will never condemn the right use of any good thing that he himself has created. Remember what God said about all those things he created? "It was very good" (Genesis 1:31). He didn¹t say it was bad, not a mixture of truth and error, but very good. "Covet" and "Lust" are Neutral WordsThe adversary has deceived men into believing that sex, lust, coveting, pleasure, sensuality, and feeling good is evil; yet, when God created all things he said "it was very good" (Genesis 1:31 ). Who are you going to believe? Christians desire, lust for, and covet after the Knowledge and Wisdom of God, which is good. Sensuality, like lust, is purely neutral. What you do with it determines whether you sin or not. Sex with strangers is not good, but sex with your spouse is. There is nothing wrong with lusting. Do you lust for your wife, or do you lust for somebody else¹s wife? This is the point. The Law does not say, "Do not covet", it says do not covet anything that belongs to somebody else (Exodus 20:17). Your arch enemy would always like you to blur the difference and remove the boundaries between the holy and the profane, between the light and darkness. That¹s why the Creator told Adam and Eve to eat of every tree that is in the garden, except of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! You see, if someone gives you a glass of pure crystal clear sweet water, that¹s good. But if you put a few drops of poison into it, that¹s bad. And the bad makes the whole thing bad. And therefore the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is all bad, because poison will kill you, it takes time. Good and evil is not good, it is sinful. And therefore, to have a morality that is a mixture of good and evil is a sinful morality. That¹s why we are studying the Word of God, because we are admitting that we are not clean, pure, righteous, perfect, but we want to be. And so we should not be offended at the words of God when they simply be contrary to what we think. Positive examples in ScriptureIn the Hebrew, "lust" (#08378 ta'avah & #0183 'avah) is defined as "to desire eagerly, to long for, to wish, to crave, to covet, to yearn, to be eager to, to have an appetite for." Lust could be used rightly or wrongly. By itself it is neutral. Whether lust is good or bad should be determined only by your Maker, and not by mere, fallible, mortal man, who doesn¹t even have a clean mind! Positive examples of "lust" in the Bible are:* Deuteronomy 14:26 (lusteth) where God commanded the Israelites to turn the tithes into money and spend it on whatever their soul lusts for; * Psalm 21:2 (desire) where God satisfies your lusts if they are good and right for you; * Psalm 132:13 (desired) where the Lord himself lusted Zion for his habitation; * Proverbs 10:24 (desire) where the lust of the righteous shall be granted; * Proverbs 11:23 (desire) where the lust of the righteous is good, and this is in contrast to the lust of the wicked; * Proverbs 13:12 (desire) where lust will earn you the "tree of life", and not eternal torment in the lake of fire, as many Christians teach today; and * Isaiah 26:8 (desire) where the lust of our soul is to God¹s name. In the Hebrew, the word "covet" (word # 02530 chamad) is defined as "to desire, lustful, be carnally excited (speaking about the physical aspect of it; like how a little babe gets excited at a toy. This is referring to the pure carnal excitement, not t
