Sex and the REAL Meaning of "Adultery" (Questioning Christianity - Part 2/3)

[ALDean292]

And, who said I was obeying by fear? For one, we ARE to reverently fear God. "Fear not him that can harm your body, but he who has power over the soul", (a close paraprhase). Secondly, who says obeying the rule puts my obeying from the heart at risk? In fact, the two walk hand in hand. When my heart attitude is right, then not only will I want to accomplish what's right, I will want to do it in God's way, and therefore, have both the proper heart attitude and the proper actions.

[ALDean292]

So, to answer the question, as I have said before, God is interested in the rule, but He typically states it in less than a "Thou shalt not" format, by way of principles, etc. There is nothing ridiculous or far fetched about this. You don't ask that everyone treat you only in EXACTLY the way that you painstakingly specifically spell out, there are understood things, or things that people learn by interacting with you. God is the similar in that respect.

[ALDean292]

Ok, maybe I have been stating this wrong... It obviously isn't just the heart attitude or just the action, it's both. My point in bringing that up was that in Matthew, along with the other issues Jesus addresses, He tells them that they have been viewing it legalistically, and taking just the actions part. He talks about adultery being more than just the sexual act, murder being more than just the physical, it includes hate, love needing to extend to those who hate us, not just those who're kind

[ALDean292]

But, wouldn't the heart attitude by definition include what God wanted? And therefore, if (just for a moment accept that for the sake of argument) God said sex before marriage was wrong, wouldn't any kind of heart attitude, even if that was all that mattered, that wouldn't bow to what God said be a wrong heart attitude? And therefore, it truly would be the heart attitude that mattered and the heart attitude that was wrong.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 See how difficult it is to lose your rule-based paradigm? You want a rule, such as no sex outside of marriage. But God isn't interested in that, he's interested in your heart. Do you think you can impress him by obeying a rule out of fear, at the expense of your willingness to live from the heart?

[ALDean292]

@scotthorlbeck I am sorry to hear that... Guilt is not an illusion, it is a very real consequence of disobeying the God of the universe, for which He has condemned us to hell. I would love to make a difference in your life, I pray that you know Jesus as saviour and that you know He is the only way to escape our destiny.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 Thank you. And I wish you well, hoping you will realize that guilt is based on a sense of wanting to be "good enough" to be acceptable to others, and that there is not one shred of evidence that hell exists, and that belief in such a place DOES constitute superstition. Take care.

[ALDean292]

@scotthorlbeck I can understand that, thank you for the answer.

[ALDean292]

heart to truly be pure towards the other if they are having sex before marriage, because a truly pure heart would wait. For a variety of reasons, sex before marriage can cause all kinds of issues. The people are less likely to be faithful once actually, married, you deal with the possibility of unwanted pregnancies, diseise, etc... And, since God's plan is to wait, a pure heart would do what God wishes, and wait til marriage.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 I expected you would say that. Is it possible there is a good pure heart attitude outside of marriage, in a situation you are unable to foresee, where the heart attitude is what matters? If you can't see this possibility, then you are the one bound by legalism, failing to consider your OWN point about heart attitude.

[ALDean292]

Ah, well, said. And this of course is where we must realize a couple of things. Number, God obviously does care about what we actually do. See the story of the man who caught the Ark of the Covenant when it was about to fall. God had told them that they should not touch it with their bare hands, and that it shouldn't be on the ground, and since it was about to fall, he reached out to steady it. God killed him for it. Number two, no, I actually don't believe that it is possible for someone's

[ALDean292]

@scotthorlbeck I will have to at sometime, need to head to bed soon... I am curious, though, if you do not believe in Scripture, why are you so concerned with what Christians think? You realize you're not very likely to change their minds? I mean no disrespect, just a thought. I would think you would focus more on people influenced by what the Bible says, but not specifically Christian... Since you are likely to disagree on lots of things, and therefore unlikely to change their minds about this.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 I was once like you in my beliefs, and I thought nothing could change my mind. It took a lot more than a few YouTube comments, but I gradually began to see that my beliefs were without rational justification or evidence-based support. My reasons for believing were a lot worse than I realized. So minds can change, even for somebody as hard-core as I once was, but YouTube comments rarely ever make a difference.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 And I care about what Christians think because the ideas they spread (which I used to preach) are harmful and superstitious, loading people down with all kinds of unnecessary guilt and shame.

[ALDean292]

what exists when we lust. That's why God considers it a sin.

[ALDean292]

Yes, I did, which is something that disturbed me greatly. As I said earlier, the primary concern that Jesus made clear but that God has always had is that it is a matter of the heart. It is about heart attitudes. The only acceptable sex based on Scripture is within marriage, and God considers any lust of one who is not your spouse as much a sin as committing the actual sex act with another person, be they married or unmarried. Heart attitudes, the attitude precedes the act, and the attitude is

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 Ok, so while we're talking about heart attitudes: Not all sex within marriage is good. A man may rape his wife. The heart attitude is wrong. So, can't the opposite be true, that the heart attitude toward someone is pure, despite the actual marriage not being present?

[ALDean292]

@scotthorlbeck If I may, superstition is defined as (paraphrased) a belief held not in accordance with any knowledge or facts, an irrational fear based upon that, or any blindly accepted notion. I have checked all of my beliefs on the matter thoroughly, as I provided Scripture references and explanations, and none of it is accepted blindly, but with significant study. Now, while you may disagree with my beliefs and understanding of Scripture, it simply does not correspond to superstition.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 Your believing in Scripture IS superstition. You superstitiously accept that an invisible deity named Yahweh wrote the Bible, when it was actually written by men pretending to speak for this deity, whose very existence is not supported by any evidence. THAT is superstition. If you think the universe itself is evidence of Yahweh, then watch my other videos.

[ALDean292]

As I said, I apologize for harshness. I am willing to finish the comments that have not been discussed yet and then move on our separate ways. Thank you for your consideration.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 No apology necessary, it wasn't harsh. I just strongly disagree. You say you don't believe in superstition and yet EVERYTHING you have said here fits the dictionary definition of superstition. You should check out my cartoons on "If Religion Treated Sleep Like Sex" to see what superstition looks like in a different religion.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 And by the way, did you even pay attention to what I said in the video about the actual definition of adultery (being related to issues of bloodline)?

[ALDean292]

Oh, I understand very well already. In the temple of Diana, much of the worship involved various forms of sexual acts of all natures. My point was, and you have agreed, that to believe that specific sins must be named to be wrong is anti Biblical.

[ALDean292]

Where God consistently, clearly, and over and over again likens worship of any other gods or statues besides himself to sex, and obviously states in this that any sex whatsoever outside of the marriage covenant relationship is wrong, just as any worship outside of our covenant relationship with Christ is sinful. This cannot be ignored and is as clear as day. God did mean this in a literal sense, not just some figurative one.

[ALDean292]

Because God made Adam and Eve perfect, and His plan was perfect, it is absolutely foolishness (not to mention an imposition on God's law and will) to believe that it could've been ok another way. God clearly tells us in Genesis and all throughout the Bible (Ephesians 5 and I Cor. 7 especially) that marriage is primarily about companionship, and thus any beliefs about sex must be held in this light. Further, you simply cannot ignore the HUGE numbers of places, all throughout the Bible

[ALDean292]

Well, I apologize for any harshness. I don't believe in superstition, as I have said, I agree with your very correct understandings of some of the very harmful beliefs that have been held. However, the issue of mutliple wives hasn't been overlooked in any way. I've mentioned the kings and elders, and it's a complete fallacy to believe those somehow don't apply to us. Also, you seem to simply shove aside Genesis, which is sad since that's the only account of a perfect world and plan in action.

[ALDean292]

Oh, well, I'll agree with you in the sense of polygamy of having multiple wives, but not in the sense of sexual activity outside of marriage. He's condemning the sin of sexual intercourse outside of marriage in any way, before or after.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 Thank you. Now look up the etymology of the word porneia, and educate yourself about temple prostitution in the time of ancient Corinth. Try to understand what Paul was actually talking about.

[ALDean292]

Also, go look at 1 Corinthains 6. Pretty clear what God considers sexual immorality.

[ALDean292]

I have not made up one thing, I take this all from Scripture. God DIDN'T leave it out, you choose to not see it because you don't want to. Scripture clearly shows us that any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, and that God considers lust, "fantasies", and masturbation all in that group, and therefore, sinful.

[ALDean292]

@scotthorlbeck, Ooook, as I said. Immaturity in the understanding of Scripture. I have consistently taken the WHOLE of Scripture into account, not just taken a chapter out of a book out of the Bible and put my presuppositions onto it. You really believe that there must be a specific command for everything that is wrong? So I can do internet porn because God didn't say I couldn't? That is just silly and plain wrong. Obviously, as I said, God talks through principles, precepts, and practices.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 I have read the whole Bible myself, multiple times, and studied this topic very carefully. I am no stranger to the Bible, to its history, or to cherry picking. No, I don't believe there must be a commandment for every little thing that's wrong, but surely something as basic as the number of wives a man may have would not have been so carelessly overlooked.

I'm so sick of superstition and dogma. Sadly, a comment war is not going to change either of our opinions. :(

[ALDean292]

Also, same thing as with the elders applies to God's commands to not take multiple wives or concubines for the Kings of Israel. This wasn't just given to them, God was not saying it's not a sin if the rest of us do it, merely that for a King to hold his kingship he must not.

[ALDean292]

For a proof verse, though, go look at Malachi 2:14. God is telling him that because he had not been faithful, that he had dealt treacherously with his wife.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 Malachi 2:16 contextually shows us that this "faithlessness" refers to divorce, not polygamy.

[ALDean292]

Also, note that in the Old Testament, God punished Abraham for having a baby by his wife's handmaid, something that people often accept as something perfectly acceptable to do in Biblical times, and yet, God punishes him for it. So what does that tell you?

[ALDean292]

remember that verse that says that ALL scripture is profitable for reproof, correction, understanding, teaching, etc? Well, guess what, God's will for the elders in like above and beyond the "average" person, no, that's what God intends for us all. You're getting hung up because he says if any man desire the office, but all that is saying is simply the fact that this is what you all should be doing, but you are to be allowed to be an elder if you are not thus and so, not that only elders need do

[ALDean292]

@scotthorlbeck, ok your need to have a "proof verse" decries your immaturity in how you read Scripture. God doesn't work that way, brother. God speaks to us through His Word through principles, precepts, and practice. Again, note seriously in Genesis. ONE man and ONE woman, when all was VERY good, EXACTLY the way God wanted it. This shows us that God intended sex to be between one man and one woman. Also, you have a very huge misunderstanding of how Scripture is used in relation to church elders

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 How dare you make up laws that your God DID NOT MAKE! Who the hell do you think you are, God? Your God made NO LAW against polygamy, yet you you consider yourself wiser than him! So much so, that you feel compelled to invent this invisible law by referencing the creation story, where no law is given. Tell me something: If God "doesn't work that way" then why did he give hundreds of other laws? If this was SO IMPORTANT to him, then why the hell would he leave that out?

[ALDean292]

Ok, nevermind, you needn't answer my objections, I just found out how un-Biblically you read Scripture. Please, please, for your own spiritual health, try to sit down with the Bible sometime and LLEAVE your presuppositions that our culture and your sin have engraved in you, and see what God really has to say. I'll be praying for you.

[ALDean292]

Also, no, sexual attraction is NOT what is supposed to bring us together. It is supposed to be a love of Christ, true love (not primarily romantic) of each-other, and a oneness in spirit towards ministry (whatever the ministry may be, all Christians are called to ministry). Um, yeah, that's because the NIV, ESV, and the NLT are CORRUPT translations and are blasphemy.

[ALDean292]

Wow, you seriously think that God never condemns polygamy? Wow... Go read the Bible, dude...

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 Give me one verse where God CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY condemns polygamy. And I don't mean for church elders, I mean for the common folk. I don't want any verses that require you to project a meaning onto the text that isn't really there.

[ALDean292]

someone who is not yours, and that Jesus condemned this.

[ALDean292]

Thus, from this and everything else we see about marriage all throughout the Bible, we know that marriage is the only proper place for sex. Within it, it is a great and wonderful thing, and it is primarily for pleasure, and secondarily for procreation. I will agree with you that it was a horrible tragedy that many Christians did consider any sex at all sin, however, it was not practically all, it was primarily Roman Catholisism. From all this we know that adultery sex OR lustful thoughts for

[ALDean292]

Go look at Genesis 2, where God says that a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh. From this and the surrounding context we can see that the primary design of sex was for pleasure /within the marriage/. Never outside of it. That is what Hebrews means when it says marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled. It literally means that marriage is the ONLY place where sex is undefiled, otherwise, he wouldn't have specified that.

[ALDean292]

Further, in 1 Corinthians, we are told not to stir up passions, therefore, if kissing arouses you sexually, then you shouldn't do it before marriage. I will admit,lust doesn't necessarily mean sexually, but it does in this case. Also, you have no concept of why marriage was formed do you? You claim the primary issue in adultery is concerned with corrupting another man's bloodline? Really? That's not Scriptural at all. It's amazing how many people leave out Genesis.

[ALDean292]

@scotthorlbeck, you've got a couple of serious issues... #1. No, what Jesus was referring to in Matthew has to do with lust. See, look at the other examples Jesus talks about, murder being equal to hatred, etc. Jesus was getting at a foundational issue here, the heart attitude. Jesus says that anyone who lusts HAS committed adultery, and no, it didn't have to be with another man's wife. This applies to men and women, just the same as hating your "brother" applies to both genders. Heart attitudes

[scotthorlbeck]

@TheBurnedMuffin And now you have a more accurate idea of what the term "adulterer" in the Bible actually means (unless you didn't actually watch my video).

[sweets3000]

@scotthorlbeck Ok....and what about the sexually immoral? If your assessment is correct and sex outside of marriage with single women was okay, then who are the sexually immoral?

[scotthorlbeck]

@sweets3000 I've been meaning to make a video to expand on the meaning of "sexual immorality" but have gotten bogged down in other things. Long story short, "sexual immorality" meant unlawful sexual relations (according to the law of Moses). When adultery was not in view, "sexual immorality" was mainly a reference to temple prostitution, a common act of worship to the many idols at the time. Paul mentions this contextually when he is talking about sexual immorality in 1 Cor 6:15.

[R11110000]

I can write a response bro but I more want to say if you are interested in hearing my thoughts, I am sure you will email me. I am here anytime and mean this response as well as all my previous ones with the utmost respect to your views and ideas even though I do disagree.

[62netty]

NIetzsche said: "Christianity gave Eros poison to drink. He didn't die from it, but it degenerated him into a vice".

He was right. And society has been suffering the consequences for almost 2000 years.

[scotthorlbeck]

@62netty Indeed...!

[Insaneplanetman]

So virgin Christian kids are the ones committing the violent crimes in our society? Robbing banks disguised as veggie-tales characters maybe?

[scotthorlbeck]

@Insaneplanetman Yup, Bob the Tomato, especially. :) Seriously, though, forbidding something (even the thought of it) that is as central to our nature as eating, sleeping, and pooping, can drive a person insane. Not everyone is gonna go on a shooting spree as a result, but it would certainly tend toward a lot of frustration and aggression in those that actually do commit acts of violence.

[mythicalhell]

LOL love the ending!

[8Anya8]

No man can measure up to the law, for the law is spirit, man is carnal.

Through out the bible there is a continual unfolding of the revelation of God, therefore there is no contradiction save in the minds of those who do not possess the Spirit within them.

The law is God's indictment against man who is a sinner so he had to provide a loophole in order to grant leniency to his people, lest they should all perish.

btw the torah was given only to Israel who agreed to the terms and conditions.

[scotthorlbeck]

@8Anya8 "therefore there is no contradiction..." Uh huh, right... Personally, I think you're dodging a very clear problem here by using a bunch of mystical mumbo-jumbo. You're entitled to your opinion, but just remember that there's a big difference between being rational vs. rationalizing. I'm sure you can come up with a long-and-convoluted way to explain it away, but the simplest explanation is that the Bible is not nearly as perfect as it claims.

[thwoolfe]

@8Anya8:

the bible is made up by man.

copied and stolen ideas, hampered togerther...

[8Anya8]

Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you,,, but from the beginning it was not so.

[scotthorlbeck]

@8Anya8 So which is it? Psalm 19:7 says, "The law of the LORD is perfect..." but Jesus said that Moses made concessions in the law. It can't be both. Could this be a (gasp) contradiction?? I'm interested to see how the cognitive dissonance will lead you to rationalize this problem.

[rtslayer]

@scotthorlbeck you keep "quoting" only part of a sentence of a verse. You are clearly trying to pervert what the bible says and not seriously reasoning for what it really says. "The law of the lord is perfect in converting the soul the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple"

[scotthorlbeck]

@rtslayer Funny, that's what I would argue in reverse. Too many verses about sex are completely misunderstood because we are so far removed from the culture in which they were written, and the reasons for which they were written. I am not attempting to pervert the Bible; I am attempting to shed some light on the superstitious attitudes Christians are spreading, which are having real, negative effects on people.

[8Anya8]

Yes, but for a different time and culture, slavery was practiced long before the bible was even written.

Abortion is praticed today among a so called civilized nation that is largely a result of promiscuity/ fornication/adultery.

In other words murder of the unborn and helpless.

Man is a stubborn creature so God had to work with what he had, of course an Israelite was not permitted to kill a slave, unlike Americans who are permitted by law to kill babies.

Jeremiah 7:31

[scotthorlbeck]

@8Anya8 "Slavery was practiced long before the bible was even written." And yet somehow, "God" didn't take the opportunity (when writing the Bible) to outlaw it. Israel had JUST come out of slavery in Egypt themselves, and yet God did NOT make one of the ten commandments "You shall not keep slaves." You say "God had to work with what he had," but I thought his law is perfect and does not conform to our shortcomings. "The law of the Lord is perfect" not "The law of the Lord is a compromise."

[8Anya8]

'People always use the Bible to sanction their own depravity. It has been used to justify slavery, racism,etc'

Exactly, people misapply the scriptures in order to justify their depravity,just as you have done here.

The problem in with humans not with God.

The bible is a record of man's sinful behaviour, which does not mean that God approves of slavery,etc

Man is self destructive,so it is to this end that God is justified in punishing the few for the good of the many.

[scotthorlbeck]

@8Anya8 'The problem i[s] with humans not with God.' I agree. People are making up gods and goddesses that they can't prove are real, and using them as justification for controlling others or oppressing others.

The Bible most certainly approves of slavery, and even gives rules on how hard you can beat your slave. (Exodus 21:20-22).

[8Anya8]

So all in all this video is incomplete and utterly biased.

For it is advocating sin on the basis of having the bible sanction his own depravity,which is seen as natural as mentioned before to modern so called enlightened western thought.

In closing what does God have to say in regard to this kind of reasoning?

"They are a nation without sense, there is no discernment in them.

Their wine/pleasure is the venom of snakes, the deadly poison of vipers."

[scotthorlbeck]

@8Anya8 Yes, the video is incomplete because it is a complex topic, but my goal is to make people think, instead of clinging to traditions. People always use the Bible to sanction their own depravity. It has been used to justify slavery, racism, misogyny, hatred of homosexuals, division, genocide, and so on. Personally, I see no reason (any more) to accept the claim that it was telepathically inspired by an invisible deity named Yahweh, but I will have to discuss that more in future videos.

[8Anya8]

The word of God does condemn polygamy in numerous places.

Genesis 4:19 / 26:34,35 Deut 17:17 1Timothy 3:2

The standard;

A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, not wives. Genesis 2:24 Matt, 19:5

The translated word, fornication, from the greek Poneria,from where we get the word porn, has the same meaning no matter who it is translated, sexual immorality.

Sex is not evil for God created sex to be enjoyed in the bond of marriage.

[scotthorlbeck]

@8Anya8 None of the verses you gave actually condemn polygamy. You are reading into the text something that is not there, just like using 1 Cor 7:29 to forbid sex within marriage. Deut 17:17 forbids *excessive* wives, along with excessive horses, excessive gold, excessive silver, etc. Excessive is not the same things as "more than one." 1 Tim 3:2 applies to overseers only, and "one wife" could also be translated "a wife" (which makes the meaning more ambiguous).

[scotthorlbeck]

@8Anya8 Jesus was always harping on the Pharisees for adding commands that God didn't make. There is NO LAW in the OT against polygamy. You are reading things into the text based off of tradition! Becoming "one flesh" with someone means having a child. A child is a combination of the parents' genes--one flesh. Is it possible to have a child with more than one person? Yes. So you can become one flesh with many people. The rampant polygamy in the OT is evidence that they understood it this way.

[8Anya8]

The corrupting of the bloodline is true, but with certain guidelines.

Numbers 36:6

God presented what his holy character demanded of men and women knowing that they would fail,in order to reveal to us that we are sinners and in need of a saviour.

The Torah provided dignity for women in a time when women were regarded as nothing more then property by the surrounding nations.

Deut, 21:10-13 / 22:25,26

Here is a verse in response to your 6:10 comment, Acts 17:30

God overlooked such ignorance

[8Anya8]

In Matthew 5 Yah'shuah is pointing out where the sin,not only of adultery,but murder,divorce, oaths,etc begins from within the person's heart.

Middle east customs in order to prevent what is common among westerners,(unwanted babies,abortions,etc) was to have pre fixed marriages for their children,thus when the longing to have sex arose they could enjoy it in the bonds of marriage.

The genealogies are merely a record of the tribes as was customary,read Ezra & Nehemiah for a better understanding

[8Anya8]

Jerome,Martin Luther,etc, misinterpreted the scriptures as do many others today.

While you brought up some interesting points you need to dig yet deeper.

The let those who have wives,, bit must be taken into context, continue,"those who weep,those who rejoice, those who buy,etc.

So instead of these men looking for a new wife they need to realize that life is short lived and that they should look instead to the after life.

Psalm 51:1 is not the sexual act but the entrance of sin in life.

[footloosebowler]

I saw one of your videos that was favorited by Philhellenes, and now I've watched a few. You have some good stuff, I hope your viewer base grows...you deserve it more than a lot of the more popular channels (*cough cough* Laci Green...).

[scotthorlbeck]

@footloosebowler Thanks!

[scotthorlbeck]

@lambchopxoxo No kidding. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Christians have no idea how out-of-whack their sexual values are with their own holy book. Translation and tradition has a way of slanting things.

[lockwoodisafaggot]

this was great. I mean really great, I really really wish that the people who hammer people with belief would watch you , PROF et al...

[scotthorlbeck]

@lockwoodisafaggot Thanks! Spread the word!

[jeffcostner]

interesting...