Talk:Gospel of Matthew

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Matthew 5:27–28 (possibly the basis of an article)[edit]

WP has an article on it. One day so might we.

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (KJV)


What might we conclude from these two verses?

  1. It is okay for women to lust after men, like the lady in Song of Solomon (the I-am-so-sick-with-love one).
  2. It is okay for women to lust after women (as long as their affections aren't unnatural).
  3. It is okay for men to lust after men (as long as they don't have sex in a horizontal position or try to gang-rape angels).
  4. Blind people are probably safe, or put on a blindfold before going to a brothel.
  5. Phone sex is okay.
  6. Clothes fetishism (such as panties or high heels) is okay.
  7. It's okay to look at nekkid women as long as it doesn't cause lust.
  8. In for a penny, in for a pound. Why look when you can just do it?
  9. If you are a guy 'miring your wife's voluptuous curves, you are committing a sin. You might be permitted to rape your wife, just as long as you don't do it with lust.
  10. If you getting married, it better not be because you like the way she looks—AGAIN, DON'T LOOK AT THE UNMARRIED WOMAN THAT WAY!!!, even if you are marrying to ease your lust.
  11. If you can't help it, better pluck your eye, or I suppose, your eyes, out. On the other hand, if Jesus seems okay with self-mutilation, maybe it's the gonads that should be cut off: the latter should make the celibacy that St. Paul seemed favourable to much easier.
  12. The words "woman," "lust," and "adultery" are perfect translations of the original documents, which in turn are perfect transcriptions of what Jesus said. The lack of additional commentary which would allow men to lust after unmarried women provided they did so without acting or speaking inappropriately or otherwise creeping-anyone-out is proof that none are applicable. Only secular humanist atheists, liberal so-called "Christians", or men-with-lust-on-the-brain—all which are synonymous the same—would try to find out otherwise.

"C ' mon," a guy might say, "is Jesus asking for perfection?!?" Yep. Sez so at the end of the chapter.

Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 19:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Different times?[edit]

["voice+of+one+crying"+"out+of+context"&source=bl&ots=nwa5FKOkJj&sig=ACfU3U2AdYsAApcDX-RML0-yZSrld7M5Rw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP7cra3a_jAhXxYd8KHaOXCJUQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q="voice%20of%20one%20crying"%20"out%20of%20context"&f=false] are the explanations in this page possible? So the gospels did not quote out of context? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk

Elaborate. Which specific parts of the article do you think are quoted out of context? What context do you think is correct? Why? What reasons, evidence, etc do you have to back up your position? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The link above mentions that the gospel writers simply quoted from the Old Testament due to difference in time. Did you read the link above? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
Yes I did. Without further context there is, to put it bluntly, no reason for me to care about your request. I can hold up a copy of Harry Potter, point to it, then point to a Bible. But without further explanation, such actions mean nothing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
In other words, the gospel writers are reliable even if they seem to modern people to have quoted out of context? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
No, they are not. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Why not — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
Isaiah 9:19 God = wrath; Philippians 4:5 God = gentle. Seems legit. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Because there is evidence from literary experts that the stories are patchwork hybrids from multiple time periods, with at least two of them bearing evidence of forgery. Further, there is no external evidence from sources contemporary to the events within the stories to support them, meaning the contents of those stories are hearsay. Think of it this way, if I claimed the Harry Potter books were true, would you believe me? If all I offered was the contents of said books, would you believe me? If not, why not? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Because Rowling never has calmed them to be true. Why doubt what the author says? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
What if you found no information on Rowling? Then it would merely be a claim from one person about a work of fiction. A work which contains fantastical events for which there is no basis in reality. In that case, I myself would certainly be skeptical, if not outright disbelieve such assertions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Well we do not see wizards or Hogwarts. Likewise, Harry Potter to my knowledge NEVER claims to be anything more than fantasy — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
Neither does the bible. Theists claim it is more than fiction, not the work itself. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)