According to Paul, Jesus was a sinner

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: chr0naut

Looking at porn is not a sin.

That's not quite what Jesus said:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Bleeeeep

We have to have a release, not doing so could mean health issues, prostate cancer for example. If God gave us the urge to masturbate, why would you ignore it? God is telling you to do it.

There are people who are celibate and people who are asexual, they don't suffer any particular health problems issues above what the general public does.

Multiple sexual partners, however, confer greater risk in contracting communicable diseases and the more people in an environment engaged in it, the greater the chance that a disease will spread.

Oral sex has been implicated in throat cancer as an effect of transmission of Human Papilloma Virus 16 (HPV 16). Monogamous partners, however, are far less likely to either carry, or be affected by this virus.

Masturbation, however, would bring no risk of disease. There is no specific mention of it in the Bible, beyond a reference to Onan "spilling his seed" but his sin is that he did it to prevent the family line from being carried on (which was his duty as "redeemer" of his family).

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Correct, "original sin" is Roman Catholic dogma.

heh... I wish that were true...

Original sin is not just a roman catholic thing... the Protestant orthodox reformed church believes in it as well...

They are daughters of the RCC, so same applies. "Original sin" came from the RCC.

I'm non-denominational.

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think watching porn is lustful at all, committing a sin based on that lust would be tracking a certain porn star down and stalking her or something. I don't do that nor would I ever do it.

Like I said, if Jesus was identical to me in every respect then he looked at women and thought them to be attractive, he even masturbated to them. Masturbation is not a sin, if so Jesus probably sinned all the time, IF he didn't have a wife that is.

If Jesus was identical to me in every respect, he had moments of "lust" just like we all do. Did he act on that feeling? No, and neither do I.

If Jesus is identical to me in every respect.... he is identical to me in EVERY respect, lust included. Lust is not a conscious choice, rape is.

If Jesus is identical to me in every respect then I have the same capabilities as he does, because we are identical in every respect.

See where I'm going with this? I know the topic has been moved to lust and all that good stuff, but that is not the topic here, the topic is that Jesus is said to be identical to us IN EVERY RESPECT. That's the topic of the thread, not whether lust is a sin or not. If Jesus is identical to us in every respect, we have the same exact capabilities that he did, choosing not to sin included. Or maybe it means even Jesus couldn't avoid sin? After all, if we can't then neither could he because.........

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Of course he was a sinner. He was human and no human is perfect.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree, if he never sinned then he never knew what it was like to be human and he failed at his mission. His baptism points toward a sinful life before his ministry, otherwise why would he partake in a ritual that symbolizes washing away sins?

a reply to: rickymouse

So why does God choose to punish us for being born into a society that we had no control in the construction of? If sin cannot be avoided in this society, and God put us in this society, why does he frown upon us when we sin? He put us in this situation to begin with.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I guess that is one way to look at it. I just see Jesus as a human like any other therefore he has the same failings as anyone else.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I agree, if he never sinned then he never knew what it was like to be human and he failed at his mission.

That's wasn't His "mission". His mission wasn't to experience sin, so that's a straw man.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: rickymouse

So why does God choose to punish us for being born into a society that we had no control in the construction of? If sin cannot be avoided in this society, and God put us in this society, why does he frown upon us when we sin? He put us in this situation to begin with.

That's why He Himself provided the redemption freely to anyone who asks for it. God created an existence where we were free to choose to love Him or not, sin is the secondary consequence of that freedom. But without that freedom, there would be no chance for us to freely choose to love Him.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Of course he was a sinner. He was human and no human is perfect.

According to the gospels Jesus was the exception to the rule. That He alone was the incarnate Son of God. In the same way that you can't use the exception to define the rule you likewise cannot use the rule to define the exception.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well the gospels are wrong obviously. No such possibility could exist. Humans are humans. If Jesus existed, he wasn't divine.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: rickymouse

So why does God choose to punish us for being born into a society that we had no control in the construction of? If sin cannot be avoided in this society, and God put us in this society, why does he frown upon us when we sin? He put us in this situation to begin with.

It is a test to check if we are worthy. I guess I kind of flunked, but if I try hard I may bring my score up to a D-. So I guess I am going to flunk.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well the gospels are wrong obviously. No such possibility could exist. Humans are humans. If Jesus existed, he wasn't divine.

You are ignoring that the Biblical account is a miracle, a direct contradiction of the laws of nature by the hand of God. It's fine to say you reject anything metaphysical, that's a rational position to take. But you can't logically use the rule to define the exception, it's the exception.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I know, his mission was to see what it was like to be human. If he never sinned then he had no idea what it was like to be human. In other words hee failed and was not made "identical to us in every respect" as Hebrews says.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

According to the gospels Jesus was the exception to the rule. That He alone was the incarnate Son of God. In the same way that you can't use the exception to define the rule you likewise cannot use the rule to define the exception.

Then he was not identical to us in every respect.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I know, his mission was to see what it was like to be human.

No, it wasn't that either. It wasn't a celestial joyride to Earth to test out humanity. It you would like to know what His mission was, look at His prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, His mission was the "cup" He was asking the Father to take from Him if there were another way to redeem humanity from sin. His mission was to be the Passover lamb of God, or the goat from the Day of Atonement who was slaughtered with the sins of the people placed upon it.

That was His mission.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Then he was not identical to us in every respect.

Yes, He was fully human in every respect. People who live their lives without ever experiencing life with electricity are no less human than you or I. Experiences don't define humanity.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

He never knew the human condition if he never sinned. If humans are bound to sin automatically then so was Jesus. If he wasn't then he wasn't fully human.

What if I told you I have never sinned? Would you believe me? If not, why?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

He never knew the human condition if he never sinned. If humans are bound to sin automatically then so was Jesus. If he wasn't then he wasn't fully human.

Again, the Bible doesn't affirm "original sin". That's Catholic dogma to justify infant baptism, a pagan ritual from Babylonian mystery religions. The Bible says children are blameless until the age where they are capable to understand good from evil and choose evil consciously. And I already said experience doesn't define humanity. I gave the example of someone who has never experienced electricity. Or you could easily argue that no person who ever experienced TV or air conditioning isn't fully human.

Experience isn't genetic. And sin is something humans participate or experience in, not a genetic definition.