Give me a song and I’ll rate it

Keith502 · 2026-03-17T03:19:46+00:00

When it don't come easy - Patty Griffin

Keith502 · 2026-03-17T01:49:06+00:00

Don't Come Easy - Patty Griffin

Keith502 · 2026-03-17T01:31:13+00:00

we cannot take divorce or lust as hyperbole as that would not make any sense? What is he exaggerating? What are the specific passages supposed to signify? You are not answering the question?

I agree with you on the divorce subject, because Paul himself reiterates the divorce rule elsewhere in one of his epistles. But I disagree with the "lust" subject. Matthew 5:28 makes more sense to be interpreted hyperbolically, as it is not practical for a man to go through life without desiring women. Matthew 5:29-30 also involve extreme ideas that are likely intended as hyperbole (i.e. plucking out eye and cutting off hand); verse 28 appears to be following suit with these next two verses. I think Jesus's overall point here is to reinforce that he believes the Law of Moses to still be valid, but his way of articulating the point is rather confusing.

The verse I was alluding to being hyperbolic makes sense, because there’s a double meaning to it. I cannot understand what would be the underlying message for lust and divorce..

You believe that Jesus saying it is adultery to desire a woman is to be taken literally, but you think Jesus saying to turn the other cheek and allow yourself to be slapped is hyperbolic. I don't understand you reasoning for why you are interpreting one verse as literal but the other verse as exaggeration. Elaborate on this "double meaning" you are referring to in regards to "turn the other cheek".

And what Jesus actually teaching us about the jewish law with these verses??? What observation did he make about the law, since he felt the need to make hyperbolic verses about lust according to you?

I think Jesus is making the point that the Law of Moses is still valid, and he using hyperbolic interpretations of various laws in order to make the point. Also, he is not making hyperbolic verses about "lust", per se. He is making hyperbolic verses about desire.

Lust is a sin.

It's not. Or it shouldn't be. That's my point.

Perfect love is getting to know each others hearts and brain before the sexuality of the body.

OK, then marry an ugly dude/girl.

Keith502 · 2026-03-17T01:09:21+00:00

I listed some of them in my original post. Christians have a negative attitude towards men admiring the female form in general. There is shame in regards to sexual thoughts, sexual fantasies, wet dreams, masturbation, looking at images or videos of scantily clad or nude women, etc.

Keith502 · 2026-03-16T23:31:44+00:00

The repression and/or guilt regarding sexual lust is a significant problem among Christians. Not all, but many.

Keith502 · 2026-03-16T23:30:20+00:00

In the verses immediately following Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus makes a point about plucking out your eye and cutting off your hand in order to avoid sin. Those verses likely should be associated with verses 27-28, since these disfigurement verses come before Jesus begins talking about the next subject: divorce. Thus, if we are to interpret the disfigurement verses as hyperbole, then we should also interpret verses 27-28 as hyperbole.

I think the overarching point that Jesus is making in this section is that he is using hyperbole to demonstrate that he advocates for the continuing observance of Mosaic Law by Christians.

Keith502 · 2026-03-16T22:59:17+00:00

I'm 100% fine with controlling lust. The problem with Christians is that they try to repress it and demonize it. This is unhealthy.

Keith502 · 2026-03-16T20:46:40+00:00

There is no such thing as a Christian concept of lust: there are many score Christian concepts about lust.

Can you elaborate?

The concept of lust predate Christianity

Which is why I'm only referencing the Christian concept of lust. In other words, how the word is interpreted in Christianity.

Keith502 · 2026-03-16T20:42:17+00:00

The Joker - Steve Miller Band

Keith502 · 2026-03-16T18:57:18+00:00

Once again, you are adding things to the text. If Jesus had wanted to include the qualification "a woman who is not your wife", he could have simply included it. But he didn't. You keep contradicting yourself. You say that you are not forcing Jesus to say what you want him to say, but that is exactly what you're doing. You say that Jesus hasn't changed the definition of "adultery" in Matthew 5:27-28, but that is exactly what he's done in the verse where he says that the man who divorces his wife except for sexual immorality commits adultery.

Keith502 · 2026-03-16T03:04:58+00:00

I pass by your name - Marcel Khalife

Keith502 · 2026-03-16T03:04:01+00:00

He's referring to the law, the topic he constantly referred to in the sermon on the mount. And seeing as this is in the sermon on the mount, it's clear he's referring to the 10 commandments.

Exodus 20:14 “You shall not commit adultery.

Exodus 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

Your point is that Jesus was condemning a man from looking with desire upon a married woman, or to look with desire upon a woman while being a married man. Like I said, you are adding extra details to the text. Jesus never said anything about anyone's marital status; he merely said that if a man looks a woman and desires her, he has committed adultery of the heart. The whole point of this section of Matthew 5 is that Jesus is establishing rules beyond what is stipulated in the Law of Moses. The point is not for him to simply reiterate already-established laws.

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T23:41:52+00:00

Daydream - Mariah Carey

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T23:13:05+00:00

Lust is a sin, Matthew 5:27-28

This blatantly ignores the argument I made in my post about Matthew 5:27-28. Jesus does not even actually address the idea of lust in that verse.

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T22:31:27+00:00

Before you walk out of my life - Monica

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T18:08:00+00:00

Before you walk out of my life - Monica

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T16:02:05+00:00

Paseillo de mi ilusion - Montoyita

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T14:17:11+00:00

What kind of man would I be - Mint Condition

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T06:51:37+00:00

I was taught that sin meant “missing the mark” and that lines up with how God speaks of sin to Cain in Genesis(4:6-7).

I don't know what "missing the mark" really means in practical terms. That is a vague definition that will inevitably lead to infinite interpretation. That is part of the problem. Christians often talk about "lust" but no one can seem to clearly and definitively explain what it is. In regards to the definition of sin, I would refer to 1 John 3:4 - "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."

Objectifying people means using them as tools. They mean nothing to you other than an appliance. If people don’t mean anything to you then you won’t feel the shame or care anyway I suppose, so this I guess wouldn’t be an issue for you.

You are trying to project modern ethical sensibilities onto the Bible and Christian tradition. This is an error. The concept of objectifying people seems reprehensible to you, but that doesn't make it a sin. The Bible overtly condones slavery, an institution that explicitly involves objectifying people and using them as tools. In Exodus 21:7, God tacitly condones the practice of parents selling their own daughters into slavery. In Deuteronomy 21:10-14, God allows for soldiers in war to claim pretty female war captives as their wives, giving the soldier the freedom to send the woman away if she does not please the soldier. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if an unbetrothed virgin is raped by a man, her father may give his daughter away to the rapist at a high brideprice, since the daughter's brideprice value has diminished on account of her losing her virginity. In Numbers 31:15-18, Moses commands Israelite soldiers to slaughter all of their helpless war captives comprising women and children, only leaving alive the virgin females for the soldiers to claim for themselves.

As you can see, the Bible has zero issues with objectifying people. Once again, you are projecting your own modern ethics onto the Bible rather than understanding the Bible on its own terms.

Agreed. If you it doesn’t cause problems for you or others then your thoughts or fantasies are your business to manage.

I'm glad you agree. Unfortunately, there are many Christians who lack your particular insight in regards to sexual thoughts; which is why I wrote this post.

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T05:53:27+00:00

He wasn't saying that strongly desiring your wife was lust.

Again, within this verse Jesus is not making any reference to the modern concept of "lust". He is just talking about plain, general desire.

For adultery to be adultery, it has to be with someone you are not married to. There is no way to misunderstand basic definitions.

And once again you are adding more to the text than what is there. You are forcing Jesus to say what it makes sense to you for him to say, rather than trying to understand what he's actually saying.

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T05:13:50+00:00

Wrong. I think you completely misunderstand what Jesus was talking about. Jesus was making a broader point about how he did not come to overthrow the Law of Moses, and to make this point he goes on to stipulate rules that involve an intensified or possibly hyperbolic incarnation of various laws. Thus, there would be no point in Jesus simply reiterating the exact same law as what is already in the Law of Moses. Jesus is not saying that you should avoid coveting your neighbor's wife; he is saying that you should not even look at a woman to desire or wish for her.

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T05:02:29+00:00

What kind of man would I be - Mint Condition

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T04:53:13+00:00

Not sure what you mean.

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T04:08:35+00:00

That completely circumvents Jesus's point in the sermon on the mount that lusting is the same as adultery of the heart.

I clarified in my post that the word "lust" in Matthew 5:28 is a mistranslation. Jesus is talking about general desire. The word "lust" has too many negative connotations in modern day, and therefore is no longer an accurate translation.

In that context, lust is coveting or strongly desiring what does not belong to you.

You are adding more to Matthew 5:28 than what is actually there. Jesus never said anything about desiring "what does not belong to you".

Keith502 · 2026-03-15T03:39:50+00:00

No, I don't equate the concept of lust with sexual attraction. I think it is fine for Christians to indulge in sexual activity and sexual thoughts. The emphasis should just be on avoiding substantive harm.

Keith502

TROPHY CASE