From: tomault+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Galen Ault)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bible quotes regarding Christian sex
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:56:47 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

>Therefore, I included the references I did.  But, yours could have served as
>well, even better.  While Jesus did not really condemn the adulteress of 
>John 8:1-11, He didn't say adultery was OK, either.  In fact, He said
>explicitly regarding this, "Don't do it anymore" in John 8:11.

Quite true.  Jesus's whole point in this story had nothing to do specifically
with the woman's crime of adultery.  She could have just as easily been
accused of stealing.  In this teaching, Jesus was illustrating the need to
compliment the demands of the Law with Divine Mercy.  He was calling us to
remember that we, too, are sinners, and to deal with one another as fellow
sufferers rather than as accuser/accused.  Also, this story serves as a
reminder of God's mercy towards us for sinners, and calls us to show mercy
to those who sin against us.

>And in Matt.
>5:28, when He says, "he who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed
>adultery with her already in his heart," isn't He giving the lusting a _bad_
>connotation?  He is.

I've always had the sense that this wasn't so much condemning lustful feelings,
which arise out of natural sexual desire, but rather a lustful decision made
by the person in question.  The sense I get here for "to look upon a woman
with lust" is that, if the man in question were to have the opportunity to
sleep with the woman of his desires, he would choose to do so, i.e. that it's
not the act itself but the intention to commit the act that causes one to
sin.

>In fact, He (figuratively, I hope!) says its better for
>us to cut off a part of our body that gets us into trouble, than let it rule
>our thinking/lives and lead us to hell (Matt. 5:29-30).

I'm pretty sure this was both figurative and hyperbole.  After all, if you
were to cut off your male organs simply because they cause you to have lustful
urges, think of all the good and holy things you wouldn't be able to do, like
fathering children.


>
>So, I'm not quite sure what the point of that response was, but I know that
>Jesus and the Law don't conflict.  In fact, each reference the other.  Now,
>if Mr. jcarroll meant to blow off the Law, it's impossible, because Jesus is
>the fulfillment and embodiment of the Law.  He's the Law exemplified.  He
>shows us the context and meaning of the Law.  And, the Law pointed to Him.
>And, yes *we* have all failed at keeping it.  However, one cannot blow off the
>Law simply because we're all sinners.  That's like saying, "Everyone's sinning
>so it's OK."  Yes, the Law in defining sin, mainly condemns, because we find
>out most of what we like to do is 'sinful.'  But, again, it is good, because
>it tells us what God thinks is wrong to do and He gives us the opportunity
>not to fall into those traps by telling us through the Law's commandments
>(again, see Romans ch. 7).

The problem comes when one makes the Law, rather than the Good, the end-all
and be-all of existance.  In so doing, one takes the Law from the place that
God intended it, and equates it with God.  Behind each and every rule of Law,
God had a purpose, and when that rule fails to serve the purpose intended for
it by God, then it should be disregarded.

>
>And, one more thing, what's wrong with Paul?  He has some good CHRISTIAN ideas,
>doesn't he?

There's nothing wrong with Paul, except when one pursues Pauline thought to
the extent that one ignores the other Christian writers, including those who
wrote the gospels.

>
>--Sam W.
>

Tom Ault

[I couple of comments on this.  First, on John 8.  On reviewing this
passage what I find odd about this is John 8:6.  The situation was
intended as a trap for Jesus, much along the lines of the question
about paying taxes to Ceasar.  It's obvious what one side of the trap
was: if Jesus said not to stone her, he is condoning sin and violating
the Law of Moses.  But if the idea of a trap is to mean anything,
there must have been some reason for them to suspect that he wouldn't
want to take this obvious approach.  It's not clear to me what this
reason is.  Any ideas?  Is it that his work with sinners was so
well-known that they suspected he didn't believe in punishing them?
If so, I have a feeling that this passage may be more subversive than
the discussion so far has suggested, but there may well be some
implication that I'm not seeing.

On Mat 5:28, the term "lust" is normally taken to indicate inordinate
sexual desire.  That is, lust is by definition sinful, because its
definition is specifically desire carried to the point of being
sinful.  (It's not clear to me that this concept of lust is explicitly
in the Greek, by the way, though it seems to be implied by the
passage.)

--clh]