"Fornication in your mind"

[pianodwarf]

OK.  So, according to Jesus, if you think about having sex with someone you're not married to, it's the same as actually committing the sin of fornication.  And, presumably, since man was created sinless, this tendency would not occur in man had Adam not eaten the fruit.

So suppose the world were today populated with the non-fruit descendants of Adam and Eve... doesn't that mean, presumably, that we would be getting married to people that we don't want to have sex with, and that the desire to have sex with them wouldn't appear until after the wedding?  I'm kind of wondering how this would work.  Would the reverend say, "I now pronounce you man and wife," and then they'd look at each other and suddenly have the hots for each other, where before there was no libidinous impulse at all?

This is just something that occurred to me recently, and I thought I'd throw it out there to see what other people think.

[Nick]

No, If Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit then they would not of had kids.  The pain of childbirth was part of the fruit thing.  God's creation would have been prefect and He could have taken them to heaven or left them alone forever since death also was a result of the fruit thing.  Sounds kind of boring.

JImmy Carter use to say stuff about lust in the heart when he was president.  Baptists seem to have a hang up with that...but then they have a hang up with a lot of shit.

[12 Monkeys]

never mind the wife what about the 13 yr old boy who goes home and furiously masturbates thinking about the 17 yr old girl working at the Dairy Queen......thinking about fornication starts way before you understand what it even is.

[Nick]

Going to be a lot of guys in hell.

[Garja]

I had always interpreted the "pain in childbirth" as: "what would not have been painful, now will be", not "now you are gonna have kids, suck it".

Given that human female anatomy kinda sucks for the purposes of childbirth compared to many animals who, while it may not be a pleasant physical experience, doesn't seem as excruciatingly painful in a "tear from my V to my A" kinda way.

/Conjecture

[screwtape]

OK.  So, according to Jesus, if you think about having sex with someone you're not married to, it's the same as actually committing the sin of fornication.

My take on this is, if you are going to do the time, you may as well do the crime.  See a hot chick and think about the horizontal mombo?  May as well dance.

But does that apply to the other commandments too?  What if you're pissed at your boss and think about punching him in the nose?  As far as sin goes, you may as well get a lick in. 

[12 Monkeys]

OK.  So, according to Jesus, if you think about having sex with someone you're not married to, it's the same as actually committing the sin of fornication.

My take on this is, if you are going to do the time, you may as well do the crime.  See a hot chick and think about the horizontal mombo?  May as well dance.

But does that apply to the other commandments too?  What if you're pissed at your boss and think about punching him in the nose?  As far as sin goes, you may as well get a lick in.

As per usual it must be applied by Christians as a metaphor and not actually what "God meant".

[Whateverman]

Would the reverend say, "I now pronounce you man and wife," and then they'd look at each other and suddenly have the hots for each other, where before there was no libidinous impulse at all?

Really, don't bother trying to make sense of that stuff.  You should presuppose that extrapolating from Christian theology endangers the logic & reasoning areas of the brain.

[Nam]

What if I lust for myself?



-Nam

[Kimberly]

That's an interesting question pianodwarf, one I had not previously considered. I'm going to have to consult my biblical expert for advice on that one!

I wonder if you are correct what would happen if after marriage there was no attraction? I've never really understand the concept of waiting until you are married to have sex. If theirs no sexual compatibility I don't understand how a marriage can survive. How do you find out unless you practice? IDK?!?!

[Nam]

Fornication is only for producing children who can be enslaved to worship Biblegod. It's not for recreation.

-Nam

[Kimberly]

And all the little infertile theist just pretend to be procreating? 

[Nam]

They don't know they are infertile. And, if they do, and still fornicating. They are all going to burn in Hell.

-Nam

[Kimberly]

Oh they know! But they ask for forgiveness so I'm pretty sure no hell for them.

Also, reop, I asked my biblical guru and he thinks you are 100% dead on in your line of thinking.

[Nam]

Forgiveness only comes for those without sin.

-Nam

[stuffin]

OK, one time I met this very spritual girl. I convinced her to fornicate with me by explaining (to her) god needed her to sin because he needed people to love him by asking his forgiveness. I said, if we didn't sin, we wouldn't need god, so if you loved god you needed to sin. I hold back a bit that my persuasion was what did it, because alcohol was involved (no she wasn't unconscious).

Just goes to show how a horny young male will say or do just about anything to get some.

As for Adam and Eve, they were just robots/dolls in god's garden/playground. After eating the fruit they became human, I think we all have our opinions on that.

PS, sounds like the bible was the first to employ the mind police theory.

[Garja]

^ Bible policed my mind a few times I wouldn't mind a do-over on.  Actually turned down sex, with a girl, an attractive one, that I liked.  Dont think I'll soon forgive Christianity for that one.

[Mr. Blackwell]

would wet dreams be considered a sin also?

What if you have a wet dream but don't actually remember the dream...does that count?

[Nick]

What if I lust for myself?



-Nam

There will be a special place for you in Hell, Nam.

[Nam]

If I lust for myself, does that mean I'm gay even though I don't lust for any other guy?

-Nam

[EV]

This whole thread is a mind-fuck. Pun intended.

[Noman Peopled]

OK.  So, according to Jesus, if you think about having sex with someone you're not married to, it's the same as actually committing the sin of fornication.  And, presumably, since man was created sinless, this tendency would not occur in man had Adam not eaten the fruit.

So suppose the world were today populated with the non-fruit descendants of Adam and Eve... doesn't that mean, presumably, that we would be getting married to people that we don't want to have sex with, and that the desire to have sex with them wouldn't appear until after the wedding?  I'm kind of wondering how this would work.  Would the reverend say, "I now pronounce you man and wife," and then they'd look at each other and suddenly have the hots for each other, where before there was no libidinous impulse at all?

One really has to wonder what the people writing all that jazz were thinking. But it does fit in nicely with the credo of "no matter what you do you are craven and depraved and your only hope is [X]s mercy". [X] may be Jesus or god, I always get those confused.
By the same way of thinking (I'm not calling it "logic" because ... well, duh), if you really want to help someone it's the same as helping them. I'd like to kill someone but didn't, so I should go to jail. I wanted to do my job but didn't, so where's my bonus?

So ... was the author just retarded? Or was he (and oh boy, am I certain it was a "he") just trying to set up a very harsh standard? There are, after all, still examples of legislature passsing unrealistic laws in order to force people to at least try very fucking hard.
This is, after all,  religion. What is may thus not be as important as what seems to be. And no, that's not only a cheap shot.

[Garja]

Ya know, its as if the author knew human nature and called it "sin". 

[jetson]

Ya know, its as if the author knew human nature and called it "sin". 

It is not that difficult to see, even in modern times, with all of our technological advances, that the human condition has a side to it that simply cannot be called good, or wonderful, or amazing, or any other positive adjective.  There are things about the human condition that are as shitty as they could ever be, and there's practically nothing we can do about it.  Other than dream of nirvana, I suppose.

[Mr. Blackwell]

There are things about the human condition that are as shitty as they could ever be, and there's practically nothing we can do about it.  Other than dream of nirvana, I suppose.

What else should we be? All apologies

[Mr. Blackwell]

By the same way of thinking (I'm not calling it "logic" because ... well, duh), if you really want to help someone it's the same as helping them. I'd like to kill someone but didn't, so I should go to jail. I wanted to do my job but didn't, so where's my bonus?

It's all about intentions isn't it? Everyone gets a trophy just for trying. Even if they come in dead last. Because everyone is special except the winner. Because there are no winners in this game.

Some people want to get a job but they don't[1] so we should just pay them a living wage based on their good intentions shouldn't we?

This is, after all,  liberalism. What is may thus not be as important as what seems to be. And no, that's not only a cheap shot.

Words are to confuse. How does what I say differ from what you say?

1.	Not talking about the disabled here but the able bodied

[nogodsforme]

By the same way of thinking (I'm not calling it "logic" because ... well, duh), if you really want to help someone it's the same as helping them. I'd like to kill someone but didn't, so I should go to jail. I wanted to do my job but didn't, so where's my bonus?

It's all about intentions isn't it? Everyone gets a trophy just for trying. Even if they come in dead last. Because everyone is special except the winner. Because there are no winners in this game.

Some people want to get a job but they don't[1] so we should just pay them a living wage based on their good intentions shouldn't we?

This is, after all,  liberalism. What is may thus not be as important as what seems to be. And no, that's not only a cheap shot.

Words are to confuse. How does what I say differ from what you say?

1.	Not talking about the disabled here but the able bodied

Makes as much sense as pulling people over and searching them for driving while black. Or following someone and then shooting them because you feel threatened.

[Noman Peopled]

Some people want to get a job but they don't so we should just pay them a living wage based on their good intentions shouldn't we?[/i]

We should pay them, but not wages. Wages are paid for doing something. We should acknowledge their effort, but we should pay them because we don't want them to starve.
Intentions should be taken into account when judging a person's morality but in no way does wanting to do [X] equate to doing [X]. By that token, we should not acknowledge a person's mere intent to go look for work "tomorrow for sure" but we should acknowledge a person's effort that they might display even though the last thing they want is another damn depressing low-wage temp job.
Take note that we are not talking about actual intent here. The commandments don't only condemn the act or intent of stealing, they also condemn merely wanting stuff that isn't yours. Having the express intent to get a job is different from wishing you had one. Planning a museum heist is different from wishing you owned the Mona Lisa.

This is, after all, liberalism. What is may thus not be as important as what seems to be. And no, that's not only a cheap shot.

Words are to confuse. How does what I say differ from what you say?

I should have specified that appearances are important not only in religion. So yes, your change would be something I would readily agree with depending on context. However, religions are mostly about appearances as they cannot substantiate anything they say[1] - not that they are without company in that respect.

For instance, I just watched a video about a study (that does agree with other, similar studies) that it's statistically impossible that all those parents teaching their kids to stay abstinent were, in fact, abstinent themselves. In fact, most of them weren't. But they feel it's important to pass the meme on regardless and if they choose to do so by lying to their children about their own sex life, it's about keeping up appearances.
Stuff like this obviously crops up basically everywhere where you have two human beings or more. Certain denominations of christianity however, especially those non-cafeteria varieties, are very nearly all about rules thay can't be argued for without resorting to god. Thus my application of the word "appearances" specifically to religion, in this context.

1.	Anything that's specific to them, anyway

[Mr. Blackwell]

Makes as much sense as pulling people over and searching them for driving while black. Or following someone and then shooting them because you feel threatened.

I understand what you are saying but I don't see how it ties into this particular conversation about intentions. Unless you are saying that the connection is the disconnect with what is logical.

In other words, it doesn't make sense to pull someone over and search them just  because the color of their skin but it happens all the time. I sometimes wonder if it has to do more with location and the type of vehicle plus the color of skin. For example...

In the late 90's I found myself living in Charleston S.C.

I could see the "River Dog's" minor league baseball stadium from my house. My house was located on the edge of a government housing project and poor black neighborhood. There was a pizza hut no more than 500 ft from my front porch but they would not deliver to my address because of level of crime in my neighborhood.

At that time I was driving a black 1996 Intrepid. One night I left my house and drove about two blocks before I was pulled over. There was a black police officer and a white one. They told me the reason I was pulled over and searched was because I was a white boy driving a nice car in that neighborhood.

I told them where I lived and where I was going and after a thorough background check they let me go.

Now, If I had a criminal background do you think they would have done that or do you think they would have taken me in?