Opinion of Matthew 5:28

[SingingAnalyst]

Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you, whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart." (NIV)

A feminist friend claims that this passage of Scripture is overlooked. However, in my own Fundamentalist experience as a young man, that passage was literally all we talked about as men. Though the Church denies this, Origen seems to have taken this teaching to heart and castrated himself. I remember having to constantly turn my head when a beautiful woman walked by, and having to report my transgressions to my "discipleship partner".

What thinkest thou? As a Christian, I believe the saying has merit, but should be regarded metaphorically, like the parable of the Ten Minas (and many others). I vote Option 1.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The suggestion that leering at someone is literally morally tantamount to adultery is probably hyperbole, but it's definitely not a good thing to do, and more straight men could stand to take that to heart. The idea that this verse is meant to impose obligations on women rather than on men is of course absolutely ridiculous and worthy of no serious consideration.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Though the Church denies this, Origen seems to have taken this teaching to heart and castrated himself.

Hang on, wasn't this a rumour made up by his enemies? Origen himself denied it.

Anyway, if he did then he was probably thinking more of Isaiah 56:3-5:

3 Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
    “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
and do not let the eunuch say,
    “I am just a dry tree.”
4 For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
    who choose the things that please me
    and hold fast my covenant,
5 I will give, in my house and within my walls,
    a monument and a name
    better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
    that shall not be cut off.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Considering its juxtaposition with Matthew 5:29, probably meant to be hyperbolic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

     Considering its juxtaposition with Matthew 5:29, probably meant to be hyperbolic.

Just as Matthew 5:30 shouldn't be taken as a literal solution to masturbation.

[Kingpoleon]

From the beginning of thought to the beginning of action is but a second; so I think philosophically and morally it is sound. Practically? Perhaps unlikely....

The suggestion that leering at someone is literally morally tantamount to adultery is probably hyperbole, but it's definitely not a good thing to do, and more straight men could stand to take that to heart. The idea that this verse is meant to impose obligations on women rather than on men is of course absolutely ridiculous and worthy of no serious consideration.

I understand the quote is given in the context of within a straight, patriarchal society, but I don’t really like how a large part of the “inclusive Church” has chosen to ignore the vices of lust and adultery in a lot of their moral teachings - sometimes to the point of excluding traditional and right (in my view) Christian ideas about relationships/sexual morality from applying to gay people.

[Blue3]

Jesus's idea of sin is anything less than perfect.

Let me repeat that: ANYTHING less than absolutely PERFECT.

It would be perfect if we never had a lustful thought about someone besides our married spouse, in the opinion of Jesus, therefore having a lustful thought about someone besides our married spouse is a sin.

This being short of the mark of perfection is why everyone sins, and everyone thus needs forgiveness through the grace of God, provided by Jesus.

It's Christianity 101. It's fine to disagree with some of these basic premises, but it makes sense on its own merits.

[afleitch]

From the beginning of thought to the beginning of action is but a second; so I think philosophically and morally it is sound. Practically? Perhaps unlikely....

The suggestion that leering at someone is literally morally tantamount to adultery is probably hyperbole, but it's definitely not a good thing to do, and more straight men could stand to take that to heart. The idea that this verse is meant to impose obligations on women rather than on men is of course absolutely ridiculous and worthy of no serious consideration.

I understand the quote is given in the context of within a straight, patriarchal society, but I don’t really like how a large part of the “inclusive Church” has chosen to ignore the vices of lust and adultery in a lot of their moral teachings - sometimes to the point of excluding traditional and right (in my view) Christian ideas about relationships/sexual morality from applying to gay people.

A lot of 'inclusive' churches aren't inclusive as they don't support and offer same sex marriage within their church. So they've already sent the message that they don't support or recognise same sex commitment, so why hold same sex couples to the same standard?

Those that do support same sex marriage, and therefore bring same sex couples into the same covenant, I've never heard of them not applying the same standards and expectations of monogamy and mutual respect to same sex couples.

I'm tired of people 'berating' gays for not being monogamous, or having multiple partners when society did everything it could to discourage us from settling down and offering nothing to those who did while allowing straights not only marriage and tax benefits but 'privacy' in that marriage to be monogamous or in some cases not, and also offer easy divorce.

[Kingpoleon]

Those that do support same sex marriage, and therefore bring same sex couples into the same covenant, I've never heard of them not applying the same standards and expectations of monogamy and mutual respect to same sex couples.

I'm tired of people 'berating' gays for not being monogamous, or having multiple partners when society did everything it could to discourage us from settling down and offering nothing to those who did while allowing straights not only marriage and tax benefits but 'privacy' in that marriage to be monogamous or in some cases not, and also offer easy divorce.

Wow. I’m not “berating gays”.... I’m saying that “leftist Christians” (to the extent I believe faith and politics are sadly intertwined) often dismiss even the concept of morality because it’s something proposed by the Religious Right.

[afleitch]

Those that do support same sex marriage, and therefore bring same sex couples into the same covenant, I've never heard of them not applying the same standards and expectations of monogamy and mutual respect to same sex couples.

I'm tired of people 'berating' gays for not being monogamous, or having multiple partners when society did everything it could to discourage us from settling down and offering nothing to those who did while allowing straights not only marriage and tax benefits but 'privacy' in that marriage to be monogamous or in some cases not, and also offer easy divorce.

Wow. I’m not “berating gays”.... I’m saying that “leftist Christians” (to the extent I believe faith and politics are sadly intertwined) often dismiss even the concept of morality because it’s something proposed by the Religious Right.

I didn't say you were I also fail to see why affirming churches that allow for same sex marriage would not uphold the moral standards expected in marriage. Do you have any examples?

[The Mikado]

The claim that Origen castrated himself involves his supposed literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12.

Dammit, you beat me to it. That's one of the best stories.

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

I know the quote is really about celibacy, but it's very easy to understand how one could have taken it literally.

[Bacon King]

Origen himself denied it.

source?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Origen himself denied it.

source?

On Prayer:

The church in the strict sense is without “a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind,.” is holy and blameless. Into it enters neither child of harlot, nor eunuch or emasenlate

Commentary on Matthew:

Before we present the interpretation that seems true to us, we would like to present two possible false interpretations of this verse and to refute them as far as we are able
(...)
For many have believed that, as a result of the two physical eunuchizations, the third eunuchization must also be physical, and have dared to eunuchize themselves, in analogy to the first eunuchizations, out of a fear of God, to be sure, but nonetheless mistakenly, and have drawn reproach, and perhaps even scandal, upon themselves, not only among them who stand apart from the faith, but also among them who can understand any human action better than those [actions] that produce suffering and physical mutilation (out of an imagined fear of God or excessive love of abstinence) or better than that person who, no matter what else he may undergo, submits himself to such an action.

Epiphanius in the Panarion says he disbelieves the story. The only witness is the notoriously unreliable Eusebius, who says his source is the political enemy of Origen, Demetrius!

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Those that do support same sex marriage, and therefore bring same sex couples into the same covenant, I've never heard of them not applying the same standards and expectations of monogamy and mutual respect to same sex couples.

I'm tired of people 'berating' gays for not being monogamous, or having multiple partners when society did everything it could to discourage us from settling down and offering nothing to those who did while allowing straights not only marriage and tax benefits but 'privacy' in that marriage to be monogamous or in some cases not, and also offer easy divorce.

Wow. I’m not “berating gays”.... I’m saying that “leftist Christians” (to the extent I believe faith and politics are sadly intertwined) often dismiss even the concept of morality because it’s something proposed by the Religious Right.

I didn't say you were I also fail to see why affirming churches that allow for same sex marriage would not uphold the moral standards expected in marriage. Do you have any examples?

I have anecdotal examples of church environments (closer to the BRTD end of the progressive-Christianity spectrum than the TEC/ELCA end, although I definitely wouldn't say this is common enough to be characteristic of hipster Christianity as I've encountered it) in which an expectation of fidelity and monogamy wasn't really being upheld for anybody, but not of ones in which it was upheld for straight couples but not for gay couples.

[afleitch]

Those that do support same sex marriage, and therefore bring same sex couples into the same covenant, I've never heard of them not applying the same standards and expectations of monogamy and mutual respect to same sex couples.

I'm tired of people 'berating' gays for not being monogamous, or having multiple partners when society did everything it could to discourage us from settling down and offering nothing to those who did while allowing straights not only marriage and tax benefits but 'privacy' in that marriage to be monogamous or in some cases not, and also offer easy divorce.

Wow. I’m not “berating gays”.... I’m saying that “leftist Christians” (to the extent I believe faith and politics are sadly intertwined) often dismiss even the concept of morality because it’s something proposed by the Religious Right.

I didn't say you were I also fail to see why affirming churches that allow for same sex marriage would not uphold the moral standards expected in marriage. Do you have any examples?

I have anecdotal examples of church environments (closer to the BRTD end of the progressive-Christianity spectrum than the TEC/ELCA end, although I definitely wouldn't say this is common enough to be characteristic of hipster Christianity as I've encountered it) in which an expectation of fidelity and monogamy wasn't really being upheld for anybody, but not of ones in which it was upheld for straight couples but not for gay couples.

That's what I was getting at. Kingpoleon had suggested that progressive churches gave gay couples a 'pass' over straight couples and I've never seen that; it's either upheld for both or not 'upheld' (in that it's not generally a core tenet) for both.

[Kingpoleon]

My apologies - I worded it poorly. I meant I was uncomfortable with pro-gay churches that openly reject monogamy, fidelity, and traditional Christian morality. Not that there was so much a double standard thereof.

[afleitch]

My apologies - I worded it poorly. I meant I was uncomfortable with pro-gay churches that openly reject monogamy, fidelity, and traditional Christian morality. Not that there was so much a double standard thereof.

You're still not really clear. What 'traditional morality' are they rejecting because they are also pro-gay? Which churches? Unless them being pro-gay is your main issue with them, not a convoluted defense of 'sexual ethics.'

I mean there are examples of conservative vehemently anti-gay churches and congregations where infidelity, abuse and remarriage after remarriage is rife. My own parish priest had an affair with a married woman. If you want to split hairs.

If a church holds to the sexual ethics of fidelity and allows gays to be married in that church they also tend to expect the same standards. Its why a lot of gay Christians choose to get married there. If the church doesn't hold to these matters and all the straights are allowed to do what they want then yes that tends to apply to the gays too.

But being pro-gay has nothing to do with either of these outcomes.

[Kingpoleon]

I don’t understand what you mean; Nathan is correct - a small (if growing) number of churches see little to no reason to keep traditional Christian teachings on premarital sex, frankly, among a number of other issues.

[afleitch]

I don’t understand what you mean; Nathan is correct - a small (if growing) number of churches see little to no reason to keep traditional Christian teachings on premarital sex, frankly, among a number of other issues.

I know that. I've agreed with that in two posts I've made. I'm asking you what that has to do with a church being 'pro-gay' or not.