₦airaland Forum

imhotep:
I would scarcely be human if I have never felt physical attraction towards someone else. The attraction in itself is neither right nor wrong . It is what we DO with the attraction that matters.

The general rule is: we should control this attraction, we should not let it control us. Otherwise terrible things begin to happen.

Thank you. Physical attraction, would you not define this as some degree of lust. The managing or control of lust is another thing. Am just after clarifying whether while searching for ones partner, would it be sinful to feel physical attraction towards someone else.

Given that lust is a natural thing what is wrong with exercising it in the "right way"

imhotep:
Lust tends to reduce the person you are lusting after to just an object of pleasure. It blinds one the true humanity of the other person.

I am not an expert on marriage counseling, but I would suggest NOT to put lust in the first place while choosing a partner. There is much more to a man/woman than just sex.

Agree again. What I am saying is that there is such a thing as physical attraction towards people, express sometimes as lust. Now is it wrong to feel physically attracted to someone else?

Do you, or have you ever felt physical attraction towards someone else?

imhotep:
Notice that relationships based on lust alone do not stand the test of time. Your choice of a marriage partner should be based on things more lasting than lust. Do u feel me?

100% again with this one.

In my view, lust is one of the things that draws you to your potential partner. Thereafter, you are both to assess each other for suitability and compatibility. Don't u agree?

imhotep:
@therationa

An untamed lust can lead to a great many disorders: rape, pedophilia, adultery etc etc. Do you now see why we are to subject sexual desires to 'right reason'

100% agreement with the above, absolutely. But no reason to have a blanket ban on "good" unhurtful lust. As a single man, can I lust after a woman with the view to marrying her?

Gamine:
Oh my days

Therationa what does it say in your religion?

In my world-view, there is no notion of sin.

imhotep:
1) Rationalism is[b] "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".[/b]

2) Faith is the hypostasis of things not seen.

Rationalism and faith are thus on DIFFERENT LEVELS. It is erroneous to place faith in direct opposition to rationalism or vice versa.

Rationalism should go hand-in-hand with faith and vice versa. Otherwise the consequences can be disastrous.


Pope John Paull II explained this in his letter titled 'Faith and Reason' -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio

Let me quote him ->

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know Himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves"

Imhotep, this topic runs the risk of going off course. First let's come to an agree definition of what faith and reason/rationalism is. Once we are happy with that I shall publish our agree definition on the main body of the post. Then we can discuss as to whether they are opposing and/or complimentary. Shall we.

I like your definition of rationalism, but I did not quite get your definition for faith. Can you present that again in simple layman language?

skyone:
Adultery

Are you saying that if a single man (woman) looks at a woman (man) and lust after her (him), that is adultery?

skyone:
You based your arguement on Adultery not for the singles. To commit an adultery you have to be married first.

Have made the change. In what context is lust sinful then?

skyone:
You based your arguement on Adultery not for the singles. To commit an adultery you have to be married first.

Many thankx, I agree. Wrongly worded title. I will amend. Thankx

skyone:
yes it is

thnkx. How about the 2nd part of the question? Can you give that a go?

Is it sinful to look at a woman (or man) and lust after her (or him)? If so, how is one to choose ones partner, if one is prohibited to lust after the potential partner one fancies?

imhotep:
Not quite. Studies say sexuality (gay, straight, etc etc) is somehow encoded in the genes. So, according to this study, sexuality is not a choice.

We now present the scenario of someone who finds that he likes to sleep with goats. According to these studies, he should not be discouraged. He was born like that. It is unjust to persuade him to stop.

Sleeping with goats or pigs or dogs is a purely natural act (On the basis that, any act that exists is natural). Much like committing murder is a natural act.

That is NOT, I repeat NOT, to say that is a desirable act. For one thing, the animal CANNOT give informed consent. Good, legal sex is an act between consenting adult with both parties agreeing and aware of the act into which they are involved.

I have not entered this topic before because I understand how strained this subject is; small anecdote.

Before I moved to the UK, I had no position on homosexuality, in spite of my earlier xian background. At university and in the community in the UK I met several people (males & females) who informed me that from as early as they could remember, they felt attraction only to members of their own gender.

Now, most African communities are very sexually repressived. Sex is never a topic of discussion in most African families that I know. In fact, this is one of the main reason why AIDS has been so devastating in Africa and most societies where sex discussion is still a taboo. Europe & USA, on the other hand are more sexually expressive societies, so anyone is free to exercise (within reasons and legality) their sexual proclivities, such as would not be allowed freely in Africa. A lot of Africans put up this facade of sexual probity in the public but behind the scene are devastatingly predatory or promiscuous. Worst still, poverty and lack of health care facilities compounds the sexual arena in Africa.

So for someone who feels a proclivity towards homosexuality from say the age of 4/5 in Europe or USA, they have nowadays no reason to repress such NATURAL feelings. On the other hand, in Africa, they would tend to repress them.

Sexual inclination is a purely natural thing. It happens in the animal kingdom. Why do we think it would be different with humans.

BTW, anything (aspects of behaviours) that exists in nature is, by definition, natural. For instance, selfishness and greed are natural. So why do some people thing homosexuality is unnatural.

stimulus:
@olabowale,

Well, I did not want to barge in here uninvited, as therationa has opined earlier that "stimulus, 4Him and imhotep" were welcome to NOT post replies to his thread. I really do not have any worries with making contributions on any subject; but I'd agree with the substance in imhotep's initial response.

In anycase, as when necessary, I'd be making inputs for our mutual benefits as the discussion progresses.

Enjoy.

Stimulus - I understand your position. And thanks for asking and you are graciously welcome to the discussion. Indeed, everyone is welcome as long as we try to stick to the topic and we stay respectful and civil to everyone. Am currently at work right now,so my input will be rather few and far between though.

PLC:
You want explanation?

Did you see that Alphazee does not believe anything in the bible? The same person quoted some passages in the same bible she does not believe to justify her position. Why believing some portions without corresponding faith of the whole and yet she want us to open to reason?

Now, this is breathtaking. She quote the bible passages not to shows she believes in the bible bUT to demonstrate the contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible. Just like you might refer to the ko'ran to show how what a pack of lies it it. Hope you get it.

imhotep:
And did these errors support Christ's claim to be the Messiah?

This is no way to debate. You are simply looking for ways to get the discussion go round and round in circles. Is that not obvious to you?

You know the answer to your question. My answers is "I do not know, I have not examined the text"

Imhotep,

You wanted to talk about scientific rationalism, so I started this thread for that discussion. But you have not made any input yet. What is happening?

imhotep:
You have to ask ->
Did the Jewish scholars abandon the Septuangint because of their rejection of Christ? Or for some other cogent reason??

Because it was littered with errors, as simple as that.

imhotep:
My main problem with Moh@mmed is the far-reaching and contradictory conclusions he made about Christ.

Moh@mmed never saw or spoke with Christ. The disciples did and wrote down what they saw and heard.

Therefore I believe the gospel accounts of Christ. I reject Moh@mmed's ideas about Christ.

Do you accept his claims that he was the last prophet of God? If so, on what basis. If not, provide your reasons?

This is the reaction of a listen to the interview, taken from the richarddawkins.net site. It is NOT mind.

16. Comment #129978 by salon_1928 on February 19, 2008 at 8:46 pm

I've read three a Bart's books: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Lost Christianities and Misquoting Jesus. All three are excellent in their analysis of the new testament (and old testament to some degree) as an ancient document. The first in particular is superb. It's long (compared to many of Bart's other books) but it's thorough, and after reading it, you can pretty much declare yourself more knowledgeable about the new testament than the majority of faith-heads.

I'm actually a bit bummed by the fact that Bart has publicly declared his loss of faith. I had always assumed that he had but didn't know for sure. Maybe he has spoken about it before but I was never aware of it. I think the unfortunate implications are that his readership will be even more firmly rooted in the non-believer's camp.

On that note, a sort of funny anecdote "I once tried to get an evangelical friend of mine to read Bart's The New Testament. No way he said - at least not before he cleared it with his pastor (or whatever). I told him it was scholarly book and not meant to convert people one way or another and would most likely give him a deeper understanding of the very book that he was devoting a significant part of his life to. He absolutely wouldn't budge - and this was his reasoning - Satan is apparently active in the world and out to tempt him. He now relies on his pastor to make decisions for him as to what is appropriate to read, watch, listen to, etc. That's why I call religion a "surgical-less lobotomy."

Buy and read Bart's new book!

Peace and Cheers!

imhotep:
I have posted this before.

Definitinon ->

"Almah ("עלמה" or plural: alamot ("עלמות" is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl"


Note:
The Jewish scholars who translated and compiled the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah first and then later the Prophets and the Writings) into a Greek version of the Old Testament, translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which almost always means "virgin"

Well, it is looking increasing probable that that was a mistake in the Septuagint, from which the Greek version of the NT was derived.

Jewish scholars accept this as a mistake. In fact the Septuagint has been abandoned by most Jewish scholars as replete with translational errors, and have adopted a recent better translation.

So if virgin specifically was meant, the OT would most likely have had betulah, not almah.

imhotep:
@therationa
Now, this is YOUR input, NOT MINE.

Well, if you don't understand, that was sarcasm, brother

What are you views of Mu-hammed and on what basis do you accept (if you do) or reject (if you do) his accounts?

imhotep:
I have read the article. The author's main [/i]problem is that of translation.

Question -> Does '[i]young woman' necessarily [/b]mean 'not virgin'

God (in the OT) and Jesus (in the NT) have this remarkable [b]capability of speaking on many levels with one sentence.

If he had meant virgin, he most likely would have used the word betulah, not almah. For example betulah is used several times in the OT when virgin is meant.

How about the concept? Was this meant to be a prophecy of events some 700 years hence?

olabowale:
@Therationa: Virgin birth is not an impossibility. Afterall, intercourse is not the only way to get pregnant. There is artificial insemination, etc.

Thanks, but slightly off topic

See reaction to interview on:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2286,Bart-Ehrman-Questioning-Religion-on-Why-We-Suffer,NPR

imhotep:
I believe the account of the witnesses. I also believe these accounts should be properly interpreted. So, I do not need any further proof.

You, on the other hand, should PROVE (beyond reasonable doubt) that these events are not historically verifiable.

OK. I bet you also believe the accounts of Mu-hammed, don't you? He also is known to have existed and also had witnesses.

Imhotep,

Please, can you review? Waiting with bated breath.

imhotep:
@therationa
You forgot to add ->

11) The existence of Jesus Christ

OK, since you want that, I shall add it to the list. Would you like to take the challenge to show that any of these eventsare historically verifiable?

Great Bart Erhman interview. Please listen to it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096131

Enjoy

imhotep:
@therationa
Since your rationality does not believe in the supernatural, it should[b] remain silent [/b]about the supernatural.

OK, let's talk about this on the other thread.

BTW, I submitted an article about the prophecy of the virgin birth for your review. I am still awaiting your response. Have you reviewed it yet?