IS HOMOSEXUALITY/ADULTERY/FORNICATION A SIN

IS HOMOSEXUALITY/ADULTERY/FORNICATION A SIN


  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
When a sinful act becomes a part of one's fantasy life, it becomes a sin.
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [Matthew 5:28, ESV]
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
I went with, "When it becomes a fantasy." The way I figure it, when it arrives as a thought, that is not a sin, that is temptation. If it becomes a fantasy then you haven't put the thought out of your mind and you are continuing up the scale to when you finally act on it.
 

Truster

New member
I went with, "When it becomes a fantasy." The way I figure it, when it arrives as a thought, that is not a sin, that is temptation. If it becomes a fantasy then you haven't put the thought out of your mind and you are continuing up the scale to when you finally act on it.

I'm in agreement with what you have said.
 

Truster

New member
When a sinful act becomes a part of one's fantasy life, it becomes a sin.
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [Matthew 5:28, ESV]

Yes I agree with you and the verse of course speaks of intent. I once read of it being described as 'holding sin and the expected delight of sin in the bosom'.

How soon that expectant delight will turn into misery....
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
In my mind desire comes before fantasy. And it is with this viewpoint I chose "desire" as the point at which it becomes sin. I suppose it depends on your definition of "desire."
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Is it a sin when you are only tempted to steal? Yes. When you are tempted to steal, it is because you already covet something. Hence, your claim above is false.
I don't agree. I think temptation comes from both internal and external sources. We may have a thought about stealing something but it is what we do with the thought that counts. If we hold on to that thought, that is bad. But if we have that thought, recognize it for what it is and put it out of our heads, then there is no sin.
 
I don't agree. I think temptation comes from both internal and external sources. We may have a thought about stealing something but it is what we do with the thought that counts. If we hold on to that thought, that is bad. But if we have that thought, recognize it for what it is and put it out of our heads, then there is no sin.
Yes.
We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, [2 Corinthians 10:5, ESV]
 

Truster

New member
Is it a sin when you are only tempted to steal? Yes. When you are tempted to steal, it is sin because you already covet something. Hence, your claim above is false.

My claim, as you put it, is not false. If your rather ridiculous assertion were correct then Eve had sinned before she ate the fruit.

''Having seen that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise''......if Eve had stopped there then there was no sin, but she took of the fruit thereof and did eat.

If you consider this as being five points and then check the five points in the OP you'll find they tally.
 

Truster

New member
Is it a sin when you are only tempted to steal? Yes. When you are tempted to steal, it is sin because you already covet something. Hence, your claim above is false.

But with the precious blood of Messiah, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1Peter 1:19

If your ridiculous assertion were correct the verse above would not be possible. Because your darkened view insists that in being tempted three times in the wilderness the very temptation was a sin...perish the thought.

False doctrine is as vile as the stench from the pit, because it pollutes everything it supposedly represents. I doubt very much that you will give what you have said and done a second thought, but I strongly urge you to do so. It may stop you calling good evil in future, but that, I also doubt.
 

Nazaroo

New member
'But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman
to lust after her hath committed adultery
with her already in his heart.'
- Matthew 5:28 KJV


This 'quote' is from the Sermon on the Mount,
which is an artificial and non-historical speech
that is really a kind of 'Halakah' or attempt
to sum up Jesus' teaching, but divides much of it from its context.

This 'quote' is not an authentic saying of Jesus,
but is in fact prime forensic evidence for the authenticity of John 8:1-11.

When we grasp that this verse is an interpretation of Jesus,
inspired by His actions in John 8:1-11,
we immediately get several valuable things out of it:
(1) John 8:1-11 is authentic, and although problematic because of its ambiguity,
was given an interpretation by the early Church that Jews and Christians could accept,
allowing them to skip over the more difficult questions raised by
the original incident.

(2) Matthew (or the church-committe that created it) overstepped his (their) authority,
in assigning meanings to Jesus' actions that were not necessarily originally intended by Jesus.

(3) The 'sayings' of Jesus in Matthew are 'elaborated' and interpreted,
often provided without their original context, and so are neither verifiable,
nor binding for Christians who want to follow Jesus precisely.

This verse is good case in point.


No rational person can accept that the mere thought or momentary
consideration of a crime is or can be fully equal to consenting to it,
planning it, and acting on it, with real-world results.

What Jesus did teach remains true, namely that thinking, desiring,
and scheming leads to sinning, and may involve sin, but they are not
all equivalent acts, nor do they result in equal guilt.

Jesus Himself refutes such a claim in another passage
which is likely a very authentic saying from a different speech:
"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit." - Luke 6:43
This saying also has been elaborated and expanded in Matthew,
for the purpose of explaining it and expounding it,
"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. " - Matt. 7:16-20
...however this did not likely happen in public orations by Jesus,
since in Mark we are told how Jesus really operated:
As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing they may see and not perceive, and while hearing they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might repent and be forgiven. "
. Mark 4:10-12
The account in Mark is earlier and likely more accurate in portraying
Jesus earthly ministry.

The 'Speech' in Matthew is really meant as a timeless message which
summarizes the main teachings of Jesus as the early church understood them,
and so is presented as a 'universal speech' to all believers for all time,
meant to remind hearers of all the teachings and stories behind the 'sayings'.

Matthew is the gospel prepared for church service and worship,
topically arranged and expanded with additional materials from
the era of the early church.

In the Gospels of Luke and Mark, Jesus begins His ministry
in Galilee (a synagogue in Capernaum), not on a mountain.


The interpretation that Matthew gives the Pericope de Adultera (John 8:1-11)
is important, for one of the (several) purposes behind Matthew's expansions
is to provide ammo and arguments in disputes between Christians and Jews
(who rejected Jesus as Messiah).

Here, a very likely early objection to John 8:1-11 was that it casts
the Pharisees and scribes as possibly physically guilty of adultery with the woman,
something which would be implausible to many Jews who might be potential converts.

Here Matthew has a ready reply:
The Pharisees were guilty of adultery anyway, for even thinking about
committing fornication with the woman. She was their captive,
and may have been caught (in the act) without even having clothing on.
Finally, how long she was 'under arrest' away from the Romans
and under who's charge would remain unclear and open to counter-questions.

Note also that "is cut down and thrown into the fire.*" in Matthew 7:20
is also strong evidence that he is drawing from John's gospel
in other places (cf. John 15:6 etc.), to remind his readers of those urgent teachings.




 
Last edited:

Truster

New member
This 'quote' is from the Sermon on the Mount,
which is an artificial and non-historical speech
that is really a kind of 'Halakah' or attempt
to sum up Jesus' teaching, but divides much of it from its context.

This 'quote' is not an authentic saying of Jesus,
but is in fact prime forensic evidence for the authenticity of John 8:1-11.

When we grasp that this verse is an interpretation of Jesus,
inspired by His actions in John 8:1-11,
we immediately get several valuable things out of it:

(1) John 8:1-11 is authentic, and although problematic because of its ambiguity,
was given an interpretation by the early Church that Jews and Christians could accept,
allowing them to skip over the more difficult questions raised by
the original incident.

(2) Matthew (or the church-committe that created it) overstepped his (their) authority,
in assigning meanings to Jesus' actions that were not necessarily originally intended by Jesus.

(3) The 'sayings' of Jesus in Matthew are 'elaborated' and interpreted,
often provided without their original context, and so are neither verifiable,
nor binding for Christians who want to follow Jesus precisely.

This verse is good case in point.


No rational person can accept that the mere thought or momentary
consideration of a crime is or can be fully equal to consenting to it,
planning it, and acting on it, with real-world results.

What Jesus did teach remains true, namely that thinking, desiring,
and scheming leads to sinning, and may involve sin, but they are not
all equivalent acts, nor do they result in equal guilt.

Jesus Himself refutes such a claim in another passage
which is likely a very authentic saying from a different speech:
"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit." - Luke 6:43
This saying also has been elaborated and expanded in Matthew,
for the purpose of explaining it and expounding it,
"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. " - Matt. 7:16-20
...however this did not likely happen in public orations by Jesus,
since in Mark we are told how Jesus really operated:
As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing they may see and not perceive, and while hearing they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might repent and be forgiven. "
. Mark 4:10-12
The account in Mark is earlier and likely more accurate in portraying
Jesus earthly ministry.

The 'Speech' in Matthew is really meant as a timeless message which
summarizes the main teachings of Jesus as the early church understood them,
and so is presented as a 'universal speech' to all believers for all time,
meant to remind hearers of all the teachings and stories behind the 'sayings'.

Matthew is the gospel prepared for church service and worship,
topically arranged and expanded with additional materials from
the era of the early church.

In the Gospels of Luke and Mark, Jesus begins His ministry
in Galilee (a synagogue in Capernaum), not on a mountain.


It has been my misfortune to hear and read some absolute rubbish in my time, but this is beyond doubt, the biggest pile of rubbish I have seen in a long time.
 

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
An inadequate question if ever there was one.

Inadequacy #1: Lumping sexual orientation, sex before marriage, and deliberate transgression of the marital contract together as if they are in any sense the same thing.

Inadequacy #2: Assuming that everyone who participates in the poll agrees that the above lumped concepts are all sins.

Inadequacy #3: Headlining a thread based on Inadequacy #2 with another question, worded as if you're NOT doing Inadequacy #2.
The Gr. word used in scripture is πορνεία (porneia) means any surrender of sexual purity (Mt 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mk 7:21; Jn 8:41; Ac 15:20; 1Co 6:18; 7:2; 2Co 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; 1Th 4:3). Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
 

Truster

New member
The Gr. word used in scripture is πορνεία (porneia) means any surrender of sexual purity (Mt 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mk 7:21; Jn 8:41; Ac 15:20; 1Co 6:18; 7:2; 2Co 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; 1Th 4:3). Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Don't you just love facts...as opposed to opinions.

Truth...as oppose to frivolous conjecture that is used to undermine rather than build up.
 

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Don't you just love facts...as opposed to opinions.

Truth...as oppose to frivolous conjecture that is used to undermine rather than build up.

God sort of summed it all up in Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:1, 32:16). :idunno: Then he even simplified that (Mt 22:35–40). This isn't brain surgery. :dizzy:

moses_made_up_commandments_737085.jpg
 

Truster

New member
God sort of summed it all up in Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:1, 32:16). :idunno: Then he even simplified that (Mt 22:35–40). This isn't brain surgery. :dizzy:

moses_made_up_commandments_737085.jpg

I honestly haven't got a clue as to what you are attempting to convey here. Some scriptures that doesn't seem relevant and a cartoon of Moses?

This is always the case with you. If you want any form of dialogue I suggest you attempt to participate in a manner that does not involve me having to decipher the message. Having to cut through the nonsense to discover the meaning and then failing is a complete waste of time and energy.

Plain English please.
 
Last edited:
I honestly haven't got a clue as to what you are attempting to convey here. Some scriptures that don't seem relevant and a cartoon of Moses?

This is always the case with you. If you want any form of dialogue I suggest you attempt to participate in a manner that does not involve me having to decipher the message. Having to cut through the nonsense to discover the meaning and then failing is a complete waste of time and energy.

Plain English please.
Well said. The same statement could apply to many other posters on TOL. It's like their private jokes or revelations are so private only they understand them. You're right. It's a waste of time.
 

Nazaroo

New member
what's the difference between fantasy/desire?

or pursuit/action?

tomato tomahto?


Thinking about killing somebody hurts you and hurts them indirectly,
because you ought to be part of a community under God.

Actually killing somebody kills them.

Its quite a significant difference, although sin may be involved in both cases.
 
Top