Like Husker, I think you are being very confusing in your language. Is there a difference between a physical state of arousal and mentally thinking about having sex? Sure. But they are obviously closely linked so the distinction doesn't matter. However, your phraseology seems to be implying that it isn't just a mental/physical distinction you are getting at, but a distinction between just fantasizing about sex and the very specific thoughts of "attempting" or "intending" to break a marriage.

You need to read better. It'd be ludicrous to attempt an argument like that. I'd be interested to see where you have me implying that.

You have no way of knowing, but I was using BibleWorks, both for citing the verse in greek and for getting the other usages of the same verb. Bibleworks is the "industry standard", used in every theological university. I wasn't "citing a single examle", I was giving all cases where the word is used in the NT. It's up to you to follow up on these verses and looking at the context in each case. It's also up to you to consult a greek dictionary, and figure out how the context of the vrese influences the connotations in each case. Implying that I've somehow mislead in what the word does or can mean (be it in general or in the verse in question) is simply wrong.

fret: "A prime is a number that has only very few factors."
Uke: "Wrong. A prime is a number that has exactly two factors, one and itself."

fret:
You've GOT to try harder.

(For two, the difference is that it is a thinking of a quite particular kind of having sex. Namely a case of adultery. Not sure why that is so hard to grasp.)

I don't really agree. Regardless of our differences, we also share a lot of common ground. Everybody in this debate would agree that "Christianity" slams down hard on adultery and lack of remorse regarding it.

Thus I think the soccer player analogy holds up fairly well. Obviously the bible is not as cut'n'dry as the FIFA rulebook, but you'd be hard pressed not to find central tenets that are unshakable.

Indeed, it would be a ludicrous argument (which is why I don't know why Aaron is arguing that I pointed out such an argument is ludicrous). And as I say, it appears that you now agree that it is "obvious" it has sexual connotations here. I don't know why you are talking about the connotations in the situations of desiring a job, but nonetheless now you are submitting that it DOES have obvious sexual connotations. Note that the bible is not the only source of literature from which one can learn the connotations of different words.

Since the material act of breaking the marriage is having sex with her, fantasising about breaking the marriage will probably be a fantasy about sex/fanasising sexually. Sure.

Welcome to the Mightbooshian school of argumentation. Raising possibility is not presenting an argument.

"Logically" following is not how language works. We understand language in context. Context has been presented. You rejected the context on the spectre of possibly having a different meaning. You have rejected the standard way of understanding language.

The substantive portions of my criticisms still stand unchallenged.

Bolded: Agree.
Underlined: You are missing that the core tenets of christianity are not exclusively based on the bible.** The belief that the virgin mary was conceived without original sin is a dogma, for example. As such it is a belief that (at least according to current church law) a catholic christian HAS to hold. There is no biblical evidence for it whatsoever, though. So, to make the soccer analogy somewhat conform to how core tenets of christianty and the bible are related would be something like:

Here is a book of rules. We play a game whose de-facto rules may in no way be in irreconcilable opposition to aforementioned book of rules. We don't simply use the rules of the rule book, though. And what constitutes "irreconsilable opposition", what would be a fair description of the de-facto rules we currently use as well as how the rules of the rule book are to be interpreted is up for discussion.

**Similar comments apply to Judaism (Talmud, Halacha etc.) and Islam (Hadith). Probably most other religions as well.

What is the difference between "desiring" in a sexual context and "desiring" in a context of a job? Doesn't the word "desire" still have the same basic meaning?

What does the "sexual context" add to the meaning of the word "desire" that would not be understandable by understanding what it means to "desire" a job?

I suspect he'll maintain there's a boner involved and therefore he's right.

We need to allow for an additional context in which women express sexual desire, too.

Nah, we don't. Thankfully, lesbianism was not a vice that befell the old isrealites. That's why they never mention it. (So, clearly, it's an illness).

Aaron logical possibility

(just making this searchable for future reference, carry on)

Clever. It's like tagging posts.

(And it won't be too far removed from its context.)

What I am not sure about here is what you mean when you say that a Christian should be someone who adheres to the core narrative of the Christian religion.

Sure, I think there are generally agreed upon rules for soccer and what it means to be a soccer player and so we can have a fairly substantive view of what it means to be a soccer player. But there are not such generally agreed upon rules for Christianity (nor does Christianity, contrary to your claim, have a rulebook, although some variations of Christianity do), nor is there some general agreement about what it means to be a Christian. So what is the force of you saying that an actual Christian should be one that follows the rulebook.

My guess is that you want to have an definition of Christian that leaves out the Christian in name only--the person who says she is a Christian, but primarily as a matter of tribal identification and never attends church or reads the Bible, or prays, etc.

In response I'll say two things. First, I think people underestimate the significance of the this kind of tribal identification in religion. We have a tendency to focus on theology, rituals, and so on, but the tribal affiliation is actually one of religion's most important functions (look at interviews with people who are very prejudiced against people who are members of a different religion--they often are very ignorant about their own religion).

Second, even if you did want a definition that left out the Christian-in-name-only people, I don't think your "following the core narrative" qualifies. The problem is twofold. First, it doesn't divide at the right place. Following the core narrative of Christianity might divide more orthodox or traditional Christians from less orthodox and traditional Christians, but I don't think it does much to divide the more dedicated from the less dedicated. For instance, liberal Christians deviate in important ways from the "core narrative" of Christianity, but they are also often very dedicated and committed to their religious identity and activity.

Second, there is no core narrative to Christianity in a deep sense. You might think that it is just whatever the Bible says, but that isn't so. There are many Christian groups that add or subtract various parts of the Christian Scriptures. There are Christian groups that believe that the correct interpretation of the Bible is not found in a plain-sense reading, but in a mystical reading. And you'll find many liberal Christians that think that the Bible needs to be de-mythologized, or that we need to find the genuine message of Jesus behind some of the theological and cultural overlay of his early followers that wrote the Bible. I see no good basis for us to say of any of these variants that they are any more right or wrong in religious terms than the others. Unless you are willing to claim that some particular group has found the true gospel, what is our basis for distinguishing some of these as being "actual" Christians and others as not?

Okay, this is mostly just a rant based on a speculation as to what you are saying here. If you don't hold that view, no worries, this is just directed to those who do.

Ah I see your confusion. You thought I was presenting an argument. I wasn't. I was identifying a flaw in what (I thought) was freteloos argument. Namely, I was saying that given how words have different connotations saying that a word has one connotation does not simply doesn't demonstrate that it doesn't have another, particularly in a very different context. A rather trivial point, I might add. I will admit, you are awfully adept at burning down strawmen. I am sure if you try hard enough, one of these days you will find an actual flaw in something I said, and not just flaw in something you incorrectly think I said.

Nonetheless, freteloo seems to now agree that there are obvious sexual implications of the passage, and doesn't seem to be at all maintaining the argument I thought he was making. Hence my rather trivial and obvious point that eludes you about the fault in this argument is very moot.

Perhaps I spoke too soon. Is it your position that the connotations - not denotation mind you - of "desire" in "I desire a woman" and "I desire a job" is identical?

I'm saying that the word "desire" means the same thing in both instances and that the language game you're playing can be extended to mean that the connotations of "desire" change with every single object of desire.

According to this view, to desire a job is not the same as to desire a career. To desire a woman is not the same as to desire companionship. And this is all different from desiring an answer to a question. This means that any time the word "desire" is used, you can say that it means something different, which is simply not how language actually works.

Incidentally, Mightboosh makes the same artificial (and false) distinction. By "identifying a flaw," you're making an argument.

Lol. Any way to twist and turn to find some new way to attack, I suppose. Obviously my implication was that I am not making any claimabout the topic at hand (the meaning of Greek words). Instead I was demonstrating a flaw (which, sure, you can call an argument) in the argument being presented by freteloo about the topic at hand. Or more correctly my now obsolete interpretation of his argument. As we have seen, the point I made - that one context having one connotation doesn't imply another has the same connotation - is obviously indisputable. By my count you are at 7 strawmen you have successfully burnt to the ground, and soon to add an eight:


Nonsense. Noting that words can have multiple connotations does not imply that every single use of a word in a unique concept is an entirely new meaning, or anything like this. I presume you are just making up something you want me to have said so you can criticize it (notice the pattern?). I maintain that the word "desire" does have more than one meaning, related thought they undoubtedly are, but this hardly implies your slippery slope to "every time desire is used it means something different".

Incidentally, I notice you are not harping on freteloo for saying it was obvious there were sexual connotations in Mt5. I wonder why?

My initial guess would be because he and I were in agreement about the connotations of the verb in the context of Mt 5.

I agree it sucks to have egg on your face, as you do by positing an argument that you yourself consider ludicrous. I can also understand how it's tempting to try to find a rhetorical way out of that predicament. However, by phrases like:

you are implying that I was at one point saying one thing which, upon being challenged, I changed into something else. That is simply not the case and I would appreciate if you didn't try to weasel your way out in this fashion. It doesn't work and is disingenious. The elegant way to wipe egg off your face is to drop the point.

You were assuming that I was making an argument as follows: I never made such an argument and it's - as you rightly note - completely absurd to entertain such a notion. I also never implied any such thing. Just to clear this up once and for all:

My initial statement was:

If "doesn't automatically" implies for you "doesn't have ... in this context", you certainly have a peculiar understanding of the english language. The reason why I even brought up the question of sexual connotations is that the King James tranlsation that tames provided initially renders the verse thus: "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Mat*5:28*KJV)"

Here, the word epithymeo is interpreted, not simply translated. A faithful translation would have been "looketh on a woman to desire her". We can now happily quibble over the exact connotations of desire in this context and whether sexual connotations are present or not (we would probably agree that they are). However, the point stands that epithymeo does not, in itself have sexual connotations, such as the verb "to lust" would have, which is a fact worth mentioning and observing when (a) a faithful translation of the verse is under discussion and (b) an adequate interpretation is under dispute.

You write further above "I don't know why you are talking about the connotations in the situations of desiring a job..." - Well the reason why it bears mentioning the objective meaning of a word prior to deciding on the actual connotations it holds in a specific context is that it saves you from unwarranted leaps from translation to interpretation. We've already seen (as per tames original rendering), that a rendering of epithymeo as "to lust after" leads very quickly to interpretations such as "even arousal is sin." If it is accurately translated as "to desire", that connection is not at all in immediate view.

And since you since you brought up the ability to glean the meaning of the verb from extrabiblical sources - be my guest. Here's a scan of the relevant entry from my Benseler greek-german dictionary. Mind you, this is classical greek, not NT greek.


"to direct your thymos onto something, to have desire for something, strive, thus desire, demand, aspire, with inf. to wish for s/m, to ask for someone, desiring his friendship or contact."

I don't provide that scan to show off my greek skills (just as I didn't provide a translation of Mt 5,28 for that reason), but rather to source my claims and provide justification for my reasoning, something you and tames continuously fail to do to an equal degree.

As you can see, the verb does not have any particular sexual connotations at all - it simply means "to desire". That you assume I'm ******ed enough to argue that a verb that has no sexual connotations in a vacuum cannot have sexual connotations in specific contexts is a statement about you, but certainly not a statement about anything I've written (or argued for) on the matter.

Thus, I continue to stand by my points:

- basing a statement about the sinfulness of arousal on Mt 5,28 is entirely unwarranted.
- rendering the verse as "to lust after" is inexact. A more faithful translation would be "whoever looks at a woman to desire her (for himself)"
- this would enable a clearer view on what the entire passage is aiming at: an intensified ethic that does not only judge actions but intentions as well (but certainly NOT unintentional arousal in particular or physical arousal as a mere fact in general).
- the judged intention/act referred to in this verse is adultery. The verse thusly is conveying: not only a real-life act of adultery is a sin, but thoughts of adultery as well.
- the reason adultery is sanctioned so highly is not because it is a sexual act. Sexual contact in itself was not frowned upon in Judaism.
- since adultery is commonly commited by having intercourse, "desiring a woman" has obviously sexual connotations here, just as it does in Gal 5,17, a verse I also supplied.

So what you're saying is that Jesus is less against "You're Beautiful" and more against "Jessie's Girl"?

I don't really see a problem in differentiating Christianity as an institution and Christianity as a belief. This is similar to viewing law as an institution and having an opinion on what constitutes a law-abiding citizen (is it one who strives to follow the law, one who has never broken the law or one who has never been caught breaking the law).

We can still debate the negative and positive effects of law. We don't just look at the ones who are law-abiding when we pass such criticism.

Regardless, your method has a problem to. Do you accept any belief as (potentially) Christian? If not, all we disagree on is where to draw the line.

I'm not familiar with these songs, but from what google tells me, it's probably not a bad characterization, yes.