Is Jesus merely a temptation to people who are lonely?

Post Reply New Topic

Two things occur to me, Mike.

First off, in many religions the human romantic/sexual urge is partly or wholly sublimated into love and adoration for a deity. I say 'wholly or partly' because it can happen to a small extent to people who are romantically successful - there are plenty of people I've known with spouses and families whom they love who still have a passionate devotion to Jesus - but it's stronger in the celibate. Consider some of the visions of Catholic nuns, which are renowned for having overtones which in any other context would be sexual. Oscuria mentioned Krishna, and he's another deity in whom the element of quasi-sexual devotion is pretty strong; if you look up the saint Mirabai, a lot of what she wrote about Krishna tallies with what female saints in the West experienced with Jesus. Hinduism actually has a name for the path which involves passionate devotion to a deity: bhakti.

Second, a personal experience. When I was at school, my love life was dismal to non-existent, and one day I was talking about this to an evangelical Christian friend, and she said 'You know, there's only one man who can make your dreams come true.' I must have looked at her a bit fazed for a moment - like, who would that be? - before I realized she was actually talking about Jesus. I couldn't find the words to explain to her how out of kilter that was with the fact that I was talking about actual human relationships, and a specific type of relationship at that.

People all have needs for different kinds of love, and, don't get me wrong, love for a deity is important to many. Other people may look at religion in a more intellectual way. But when someone needs a particular kind of emotional contact, it's crass to say that any other kind can be a valid substitute.

Religion is a sin?

A sin is an offense against God. However everyone is a sinner I mean yeah you try to avoid sin but you do one sin you might as well have done everything else.

No wonder he was called dissolute.
Sinfulness sells though. Anyone who has ever seen a Betty Crocker commercial can attest to this.

I just wanted to say, sinsboldly, that I think your new avatar is neat.

I have already begun writing an essay on Christianity.

Umm..... I think the idea that Christianity is trying to prevent ugly people from having sex is rather absurd.

For one, some Christians think that Jesus was actually an ugly guy:

Isaiah 53:2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.

Isaiah 53 is often considered a Messianic prophecy, meaning that it is supposed to be about Jesus, and I have heard it used as such by Christians.

This idea can be somewhat bolstered by the fact that God is claimed to use that which is humble to shame the proud

1Co 1:27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

As well, if we look into Christian teachings on wealth, they aren't out and out anti-wealth, but Christianity cannot be said to favor a radical accumulation of wealth, which would make a mate look like a good provider.

Matthew 6:19-20 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, (20) but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.


So, really, I do not see much suggesting that Christianity hates ugly people. I mean, it seems more likely to me, and probably to most people, that Christianity does not care so much about ugliness.

As for the issue of defining a sin, the issue here is that sins are often considered by Christians to be spiritual, not a matter of specific pre-defined rules. This can be seen with the example of the lawyer:

Matthew 22:36-39 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" (37) And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. (38 ) This is the great and first commandment. (39) And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

As the lawyer was trying to get a specific rule, but Jesus seemed to reject the idea.

Paul also appears to reject the idea of a legalistic framework.

Romans 13:8-10 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. (9) For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (10) Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

and even puts forward the idea that a person can sin based upon their own feelings rather than any external.

Romans 14:23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (note: the eating itself isn't wrong at all)


All of this isn't to say that Christianity is a great system and that all humanity must convert now because of my scriptures, but if one is going to criticize it, criticize it right.

As the lawyer was trying to get a specific rule, but Jesus seemed to reject the idea.[/quote]

Actually, he must have been considered a real radical for not giving the 10 commandments in answer to the question!

Merle


(and thus changed the philosophy of the whole religion!)

well, I wouldn't conclude that to be meant as replacement for the 10 commandments, not without taking this into consideration:

.....however, some may have interpreted that way.

well, I would think that Christianity should be the other way around, not to judge based on physical appeareance, rather, based on the spiritual, when mating, I suppose, which I would say, that doesn't seem to be always the case, but anyway, that aspect seem to happen within people wether they are religious or not

The sexual aspect is a physical aspect, in which is not a requirement for God's acceptance and the happiness Christ provides, which is teached in Christianity, and it has nothing to do with sexuality, and well, given that sex is related to carnal desires, that could be said to be something irrelevant in the eyes of Christ, also, Paul said it was better not to marry to serve God, and according to the Bible, you can't have sex if you aren't married, which would mean that getting married or having sex is not a requirement for happiness, but Christ being that who would provide such happiness and satisfaction.


Yes, I tend to feel that way very often.


Wether the hopes are false hopes, I believe they indeed can be false hopes, but I wouldn't think that to be necessarily a bad thing.


I don't see why this have to do with ugly guys not getting laid, but then, I have seen some blaming God, or the devil, for not being able to get a girlfriend or get laid, I mean, if there is a Christian-God, should he care wether a guy can get a girlfriend or not, or should he care about more important things?


well, one's satan could be another's god.


I actually find that appealing.


Like a conspiracy theory?

Actually, I agree with sinsboldly here. He is clearly stepping away from the rabbinic tradition.

The consideration from Romans 13:8-10 is one I would actually take to subtract from legality rather than add to it, because it says that focusing upon love, a subjective feely thing, can meet an objective goal/standard. I would actually think that Paul is trying to make sure that this entire shift in philosophy doesn't go too far, as Jesus does, but there is actually an interesting paper by a Rabbi about the shift in thought between Judaism and Christianity.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=992280

Not saying you have to read it, but I enjoyed it personally. And the guy actually pointed out that the lawyer's question would have gotten a substantive answer under Judaism, as it would have been considered a substantive question, rather than just a trick, under Judaism. Not only that, but the Romans 14 thing seems a change from legalistic issues to heart issues. Finally, I would think the attacks on the Pharisees are motivated somewhat from philosophy, not just that the Pharisees are demonic people.

I agree with that, that he did step away from few laws and tradition, but the issue is wether that included the 10 commandments, I would not think of them as being abolished by Jesus but a reinterpretation of them, and giving the new movement (Christianity) a different, perhaps more fulfilling meaning, considering this:



That is kinda the point I believe, about a new approach to the 10 commandments rather than the abolishment, as it seems to comedown to this, at least one interpretation of it: obeying the first four commandments would mean loving God and obeying the next six commandments would mean loving your neighbor.

And well, after Christ, you still shall not kill, you still shall not steal, and Paul still condemns promiscuity and homosexuality.


well Jesus' legal theory is quite interesting, and well, considering saving the prostitute from the death penalty, seems to support the issue about law vs equity and practically the abolishment of such laws, the 10 commandments seems to be another issue.

Galatians 3:27-8: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."


Paul was full of it. the only reason women, homosexuals were "equal" wasn't some radical leveling theosophy, it was because everyone was to be sexlessly chaste.
No wives, no catamites, no whores because the sex was nullified.

I always wondered how the church would have developed without Paul. It wasn't as if hellenic and Jewish society didn't have rigid roles for men as well as women.

Merle

Actually, that is exactly what that verse means. (Although the modern concept of homosexual had not yet been invented.)



Wrong. Paul thought it was better to remain unmarried, but he went out of his way to point out that this was his personal opinion.


Right.


A very interesting question. I think the most obvious effect would be that the church would not have spread as widely as quickly as it did. It might have missed the opportunity to convert Constantine and become the official religion of the roman empire. I don't know if that would be a good thing or a bad thing.

As far as sexual morality goes, I don't think it would have been radically different.

1 Corinthians 7:9 he said it was better to marry than to burn. Paul didn't say that wives were equal to men. He didn't say that catamites and whores were now equal. Paul said that when the sexual element was removed from the equasion then those traditional roles were no longer in effect and as long as no one acted in a sexual role, then they were equal.

Merle

Does it strike anyone as psychologically very weird to assume something wrong with participation in conventional sexual activity?
After all, it seems to approve of species suicide and set that as a goal of some sorts.