Bill Maher Gets a Little Edgy..

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
122

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
For all practical purposes they are synonymous. [/quote]

Is this not, like, your opinion, man?[/quote]

It’s, like, an educated opinion, man.

[/quote]

What passage in the New Testament yields the interpretation that Jesus means anything other than plain old lust with that line in Matthew?[/quote]

Define “plain old lust.”

But since I think you mean sexual attraction you will need to study the subject in its entirety (in context) in Scripture. I’ve been over this many times here on PWI in the past so it makes no sense for me to type and type and type it out all over again.

Plain old lust REALLY is what I described above. Plain new lust is this idea that merely finding a woman attractive is out of bounds.[/quote]

Plain old lust–want to have sex with. You find me the original Aramaic word that Jesus used and prove to me that it excludes the possibility that he meant to condemn people who allow themselves to fantasize about or want sex outside of marriage and I’ll gladly give in. Until then, we’ve got a Greek word that suggests otherwise.[/quote]

…No Greek necessary: The contemporary Aramaic is 'chamad," same as the Hebrew (see Jewbaca, above, and Targum Onkelos.) A little familiarity with dead languages can come in handy. Or confuse the issue entirely.

123

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
For all practical purposes they are synonymous. [/quote]

Is this not, like, your opinion, man?[/quote]

It’s, like, an educated opinion, man.

[/quote]

What passage in the New Testament yields the interpretation that Jesus means anything other than plain old lust with that line in Matthew?[/quote]

Define “plain old lust.”

But since I think you mean sexual attraction you will need to study the subject in its entirety (in context) in Scripture. I’ve been over this many times here on PWI in the past so it makes no sense for me to type and type and type it out all over again.

Plain old lust REALLY is what I described above. Plain new lust is this idea that merely finding a woman attractive is out of bounds.[/quote]

Plain old lust–want to have sex with. You find me the original Aramaic word that Jesus used and prove to me that it excludes the possibility that he meant to condemn people who allow themselves to fantasize about or want sex outside of marriage and I’ll gladly give in. Until then, we’ve got a Greek word that suggests otherwise.[/quote]

…No Greek necessary: The contemporary Aramaic is 'chamad," same as the Hebrew (see Jewbaca, above, and Targum Onkelos.) A little familiarity with dead languages can come in handy. Or confuse the issue entirely.
[/quote]

I know nothing of this like the two of you do, but how could you be certain after translation? Is “chamad” the only word that could have been translated into Matthew’s original Greek? And re: Jewbacca’s post, is there no other word that could signify “lust” in a less oblique manner–i.e., that would signify simple sexual fantasy or desire?

Edit: my use of the term “original” here is of course a matter of some controversy, but the question stands regardless–is “chamad” the only word that could have been used here?

124

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Not necessarily 180 degrees different but different enough nonetheless to cause a prudent man to ponder a bit before stomping his feet with authoritative vigor.
[/quote]

I will make the point here that my post on the matter opened with the phrase, “I’m of the opinion that…”–and that therefore this is rather unwarranted.

I don’t pretend to know much of the linguistic nuance of scripture, but I do know that a lot of what’s bandied about in religious discussion is opinion masquerading as indisputable fact. I honestly don’t care enough to go on a hunt for clues here, but I’m not exactly convinced that either you or I can authoritatively divine the exact location of the line of demarcation between acceptable attraction and sinful lust–or that such a line exists at all. Which makes the whole discussion somewhat frivolous.

Edit: even more frivolous from where I’m standing, which is to say that I don’t believe any of this and therefore I don’t feel like arguing it. Suffice it to say that Orwell dreamed up crimethink because of its terrifying implications, and I’d be wary of any God willing to convict me of thoughtcrime.

125

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Not necessarily 180 degrees different but different enough nonetheless to cause a prudent man to ponder a bit before stomping his feet with authoritative vigor.
[/quote]

I will make the point here that my post on the matter opened with the phrase, “I’m of the opinion that…”–and that therefore this is rather unwarranted.

I don’t pretend to know much of the linguistic nuance of scripture, but I do know that a lot of what’s bandied about in religious discussion is opinion masquerading as indisputable fact. I honestly don’t care enough to go on a hunt for clues here, but I’m not exactly convinced that either you or I can authoritatively divine the exact location of the line of demarcation between acceptable attraction and sinful lust–or that such a line exists at all. Which makes the whole discussion somewhat frivolous.

Edit: even more frivolous from where I’m standing, which is to say that I don’t believe any of this and therefore I don’t feel like arguing it. Suffice it to say that Orwell dreamed up crimethink because of its terrifying implications, and I’d be wary of any God willing to convict me of thoughtcrime.[/quote]

So just to be clear, you may be ok with a God that prohibit the action of murder, adultery (publically, of a married woman), stealing (actually kidnapping), or perjury? (These are grouped as capital crimes.)

But you take umbrage that a God may warn against “thoughtcrime,” or premeditating any of the above? Because that is what the intent of word “covet;” i.e., the commandment is agains the premeditation of a crime engendered by the very human frailties of lust, envy and greed. (Note that a punishment for the “thoughtcrime” of coveting is not spelled out in the chapters that follow in contradistinction to many of the other commandments.)

I will paraphrase Ibn Ezra (commentary on Exodus, c. 1480) in regard to “coveting.” It is sensible that normal people would long to acquire things within their reach, or within their community of reference, but would have no longing for something unknown to them or far removed from their social station. They would be more likely to act on those longings if they were near, and less likely if those things were far removed. So what the Tenth Commandment decrees is not a “thoughtcrime,” even in 15th century parlance, it is a warning against acting on longing for things that may be close at hand but in the possession of others. Others’ possessions are thus removed from reach by God’s decree, which vests the neighbors’ rights of ownership or marriage with legitimacy.

Not bad, eh? Thoughts are not punished (here) but actions are. What particular word Jesus may have used, or what Matthew may have intended, is another matter, I suppose.

126

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Not necessarily 180 degrees different but different enough nonetheless to cause a prudent man to ponder a bit before stomping his feet with authoritative vigor.
[/quote]

I will make the point here that my post on the matter opened with the phrase, “I’m of the opinion that…”–and that therefore this is rather unwarranted.

I don’t pretend to know much of the linguistic nuance of scripture, but I do know that a lot of what’s bandied about in religious discussion is opinion masquerading as indisputable fact. I honestly don’t care enough to go on a hunt for clues here, but I’m not exactly convinced that either you or I can authoritatively divine the exact location of the line of demarcation between acceptable attraction and sinful lust–or that such a line exists at all. Which makes the whole discussion somewhat frivolous.

Edit: even more frivolous from where I’m standing, which is to say that I don’t believe any of this and therefore I don’t feel like arguing it. Suffice it to say that Orwell dreamed up crimethink because of its terrifying implications, and I’d be wary of any God willing to convict me of thoughtcrime.[/quote]

So just to be clear, you may be ok with a God that prohibit the action of murder, adultery (publically, of a married woman), stealing (actually kidnapping), or perjury? (These are grouped as capital crimes.)

But you take umbrage that a God may warn against “thoughtcrime,” or premeditating any of the above? Because that is what the intent of word “covet;” i.e., the commandment is agains the premeditation of a crime engendered by the very human frailties of lust, envy and greed. (Note that a punishment for the “thoughtcrime” of coveting is not spelled out in the chapters that follow in contradistinction to many of the other commandments.)

I will paraphrase Ibn Ezra (commentary on Exodus, c. 1480) in regard to “coveting.” It is sensible that normal people would long to acquire things within their reach, or within their community of reference, but would have no longing for something unknown to them or far removed from their social station. They would be more likely to act on those longings if they were near, and less likely if those things were far removed. So what the Tenth Commandment decrees is not a “thoughtcrime,” even in 15th century parlance, it is a warning against acting on longing for things that may be close at hand but in the possession of others. Others’ possessions are thus removed from reach by God’s decree, which vests the neighbors’ rights of ownership or marriage with legitimacy.

Not bad, eh? Thoughts are not punished (here) but actions are. What particular word Jesus may have used, or what Matthew may have intended, is another matter, I suppose.[/quote]

I am, as always, impressed at the depth and breadth of your knowledge.

Do you believe that a married man whose mind habitually returns to lurid sexual fantasies about his neighbor’s wife has sinned? And is therefore to be punished, regardless of whether or not the particulars of the punishment are made clear in scripture?

127

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So just to be clear, you may be ok with a God that prohibit the action of murder, adultery (publically, of a married woman), stealing (actually kidnapping), or perjury? (These are grouped as capital crimes.)
[/quote]

And in the interest of answering this question–no, I’m really not okay with anything about God as he’s popularly characterized.

128

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
It just tickles me that an entire group of people think they are always right and everyone else is wrong. Like I learned “it is no morally possible to actually go out into the world and say to devout, intelligent, fellow human beings: 'we are saved and you are damned or we believe that we know god and we are right; you believe that you know god and you are totally wrong.”[/quote]
It seems both christians and muslim do exactly this.[/quote]

No they don’t.

And atheists tend to have the largest demographic of know-it-all’s. Further, they are the most murderous demographic in the history of the world. No terrorist Muslim could perpetrate such evils on the world in their wildest 72 virgin wet dreams.

Keep some perspective.[/quote]

Yes, they do. All religions profess to have the “one truth” and more often than not condemn the non-believers to hell or worse. And the religious have the majority of know-it-alls, let’s not pretend atheists walk from door to door in droves preaching the way of Dawkins or Dennett or Hitchens etc.

Religion also has murder down to a fine art as well. That’s for another thread though.

And to suggest Islam, or any demographic, wouldn’t lead itself down a road of systematic extermination (if they had access to the weaponry the US army does) is hilariously sad. We all know that’s where it would lead.

But see, it’s about the amount of extremists within each demographic that we have to worry about - bugger all atheists that would push that button. Same with Christians. And Buddhists. And Hindus.

Islam, on the other hand…

Let’s not kid ourselves, not all religious beliefs are equal. Some are vastly more dangerous than others. So with that in mind, let’s get back to the original point.

130

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Not necessarily 180 degrees different but different enough nonetheless to cause a prudent man to ponder a bit before stomping his feet with authoritative vigor.
[/quote]

I will make the point here that my post on the matter opened with the phrase, “I’m of the opinion that…”–and that therefore this is rather unwarranted.

I don’t pretend to know much of the linguistic nuance of scripture, but I do know that a lot of what’s bandied about in religious discussion is opinion masquerading as indisputable fact. I honestly don’t care enough to go on a hunt for clues here, but I’m not exactly convinced that either you or I can authoritatively divine the exact location of the line of demarcation between acceptable attraction and sinful lust–or that such a line exists at all. Which makes the whole discussion somewhat frivolous.

Edit: even more frivolous from where I’m standing, which is to say that I don’t believe any of this and therefore I don’t feel like arguing it. Suffice it to say that Orwell dreamed up crimethink because of its terrifying implications, and I’d be wary of any God willing to convict me of thoughtcrime.[/quote]

So just to be clear, you may be ok with a God that prohibit the action of murder, adultery (publically, of a married woman), stealing (actually kidnapping), or perjury? (These are grouped as capital crimes.)

But you take umbrage that a God may warn against “thoughtcrime,” or premeditating any of the above? Because that is what the intent of word “covet;” i.e., the commandment is agains the premeditation of a crime engendered by the very human frailties of lust, envy and greed. (Note that a punishment for the “thoughtcrime” of coveting is not spelled out in the chapters that follow in contradistinction to many of the other commandments.)

I will paraphrase Ibn Ezra (commentary on Exodus, c. 1480) in regard to “coveting.” It is sensible that normal people would long to acquire things within their reach, or within their community of reference, but would have no longing for something unknown to them or far removed from their social station. They would be more likely to act on those longings if they were near, and less likely if those things were far removed. So what the Tenth Commandment decrees is not a “thoughtcrime,” even in 15th century parlance, it is a warning against acting on longing for things that may be close at hand but in the possession of others. Others’ possessions are thus removed from reach by God’s decree, which vests the neighbors’ rights of ownership or marriage with legitimacy.

Not bad, eh? Thoughts are not punished (here) but actions are. What particular word Jesus may have used, or what Matthew may have intended, is another matter, I suppose.[/quote]

I am, as always, impressed at the depth and breadth of your knowledge.

Do you believe that a married man whose mind habitually returns to lurid sexual fantasies about his neighbor’s wife has sinned? And is therefore to be punished, regardless of whether or not the particulars of the punishment are made clear in scripture?[/quote]

I don’t know. You tell me:
How can the crime be discovered?
Has he acted on the thought? Have there been damages?
How many witnesses are required? How are the witnesses related?
Where in the document is the punishment prescribed?

And in such manner a society is built and functions.

I am also moved by the unspecified and the unsaid. (e.g., Don’t put a stumbling block in front of a blind man and do not curse the deaf. Who would know? What is the punishment?)
This thing called conscience was a powerful force then, as in the 15th Century, as it is now.
There is no “thoughtcrime” because one has free will and one knows ones own thoughts only, almost exclusively.

132

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So just to be clear, you may be ok with a God that prohibit the action of murder, adultery (publically, of a married woman), stealing (actually kidnapping), or perjury? (These are grouped as capital crimes.)
[/quote]

And in the interest of answering this question–no, I’m really not okay with anything about God as he’s popularly characterized.[/quote]

Good. Then it is time to challenge the popular characterization.
As a great reporter, what better source than the original?

133

What is the original? It is not like the Bible was dropped from heaven some thousands of years ago finished and ready for all to read.
Regarding the original topic, comparing muslim to jews, it seems that if the jews get to have Israel, they are pretty much happy(not considering they also pretty much control the US). If the Muslim were to get say Palestine, they wouldn’t go there and be happy, they won’t be happy until every single nonbeliever is converted or dead. The christians may have some values that are as bad as Islam, but they fight with rethorics, not bombs and violence, at least in the west.

So back to the original topic, though I prefer humanity to outgrow religion, there are especially one that threatens to destroy humanity before that can happen.

134

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
There is no “thoughtcrime” because one has free will and one knows ones own thoughts only, almost exclusively.
[/quote]

Surely God knows one’s thoughts. It was by God that I meant “should he be punished,” not by man.

In other words, are there any thoughts that, in and of themselves and divorced from any action that might arise from them, make a man a sinner in God’s eyes?

Edit: a sinner with regard to that particular thought.

135

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Do you believe that a married man whose mind habitually returns to lurid sexual fantasies about his neighbor’s wife has sinned?..

[/quote]

My answer to this is:

Does it consume him to the point where it harms his relationship with his wife? You and I could come up with a plethora of examples in this regard.

Would he act on his premeditation given the chance?

Would any of this possibly harm the neighbor’s wife’s relationship?

Is deceit involved or will it?

Do the lurid fantasies have the distinct possibility of leading to a theft, i.e., the taking of something from another man against his will, in this cases his woman.

Smh, it really boils down to the second of the two greatest commandments mentioned in Matthew 22:36-40, namely, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” otherwise known as the Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

In my particular case, and I realize many others will certainly disagree, I CAN look at a married woman and think or even say, "Wow, she’s hot…wow, she has an awesome body…she is so beautiful…I bet her husband has fun with her…nice boobs…great ass…sultry voice…perky nipples…gorgeous hair, etc., etc., and yet never have any intention of taking something that doesn’t belong to me. Or splitting up my marriage. Or hers. And thus avoid the sin of lust and covetousness.

Savvy?[/quote]

This is a good post. It makes sense–though I still doubt that a truly authoritative line of demarcation between acceptable and unacceptable thoughts can be divined. To take an example, you’ve asked, “would he act on his premeditation given the chance?” I suspect that the answer to this could be no and yet the thoughts themselves could still be considered lascivious enough to warrant some repentance.

136

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Speaking of wet dreams, when one has a wet dream experience with a super hot lady or ladies…Is that considered a sin,
or I that considered a super cool gift that you didn’t ask for, but unexpectedly received anyway from a higher power?
[/quote]

Really? Troll.[/quote]

X2. How dumb.

137

[quote]espenl wrote:
Oh, you’re right, the world will be a much better place if all the atheists become muslim.[/quote]

Uh, no. I don’t care if they want to be atheists or not. I am just commenting about atheist finger pointing. Atheism is as much group think as any religion. And the horrors brought upon the world by people with that ideology is not something to be ignored as if religion is some violent boogie man.

There is this ideal that atheism is some sort of independent thought, it’s not. All the atheists say the same sorts of things as if they read it in a manual somewhere. Joe blow may not be a violent atheist, well I am not a violent Christian (unless you fuck with my family, then I get violent). The actions of others, who claimed to hold a belief do not reflect on those who not only hold the same alleged belief, but do not violate it’s most basic tenets and premises.
And yes that goes for Muslims too. However, it is clear that right now in this time in history as a group, they have a violence problem. That does not mean they are all violent or all evil, but there are far too many violent tendencies within the religious demographic to say it’s a fringe problem.

The problem for the rest of us, is we can’t change that, only they can. We can only defend ourselves. And for now, we have a skeptical eye towards someone who holds that belief because there have been so many ‘seemingly normal’ muslims who have engaged in horrendous acts. Until you can get to know a person better, a bit of reserve is merely self preservation at this point.

I’d rather be accused of marginalizing then to be blown to bits for the sake of political correctness.
Yes, I have had muslim friends in the past, had interesting religious discussions with them too. They were not violent. They were, in my eyes, very nice people from my interactions. And we are only not really friends now just because of the natural issue of life circumstances taking us in different directions.
There is no type, or demographic of any kind that is innocent. All have been culpable for violence.

138

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
The norwegian translation of the ten commandments says you can’t desire anothers wife. I hope the english are getting a better deal.
God should have made a norwegian version of the bible from the get go, so it wouldn’t be misunderstood.[/quote]

It uses the word covet. Basically to want the woman for yourself sexually and take her by any means. Looking at her is one thing. Lusting or Coveting her is a different thing. You can look at a woman and admire how beautiful she is, but undressing her with your eyes, and wanting to ravish her goes beyond admiring her.[/quote]

Yeah, you have to have some common sense with this sort of thing. The big Ten refers to action. A covetous act is different than going “Damn, she’s hot!”. If you start going down the dingy road of pursuit of any kind, even a plan that allows you to get with a woman, you have crossed the line.

You cannot help how you feel, you can help what you do. There in lies the difference.

139

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
You can look at a woman and admire how beautiful she is, but undressing her with your eyes, and wanting to ravish her goes beyond admiring her.[/quote]

I’m of the opinion that when a straight man with intact testes admires the beauty of a beautiful woman, he is lusting after her by definition. Maybe not “coveting,” but certainly looking with “lustful intent.” And we all know how Jesus felt about that.[/quote]

An intent is a plan of action. Thinking a woman may be a good piece of ass is natural, going beyond that, like putting yourself in a position favorable to do more than look is where intent comes in. Admire and move on. And don’t stare, it’s creepy.

140

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
You can look at a woman and admire how beautiful she is, but undressing her with your eyes, and wanting to ravish her goes beyond admiring her.[/quote]

I’m of the opinion that when a straight man with intact testes admires the beauty of a beautiful woman, he is lusting after her by definition. Maybe not “coveting,” but certainly looking with “lustful intent.” And we all know how Jesus felt about that.[/quote]

There is an extremely fine line, and yes it is difficult. The obvious necessity for what Jesus did.

I am Human and I am not going to say I am perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I actually struggle with this.[/quote]

Like I said, you can’t help how you feel, you can help what you do. People are going to be attractive to you, it’s natural. Knowing you are taken and acting responsibly to your better half is the trick.
I don’t have this problem. Women are traditionally repulsed by me, so I have no problems in this arena :wink: