![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/12\/LustSensual.png\")
<\/p>\n
Dr. David Madison<\/strong>\u00a0is an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University.\u00a0 You can see (by the number in the title) how many times\u00a0I have replied<\/a>\u00a0to his videos or articles.\u00a0Thus far, I haven\u2019t heard\u00a0one peep<\/em>\u00a0back from him\u00a0 (from 8-1-19 to this date). This certainly doesn\u2019t suggest to me that he is very\u00a0confident<\/em>\u00a0in his opinions. All I\u2019ve seen is\u00a0expressions of contempt from Dr. Madison<\/a>\u00a0and from his buddy, the atheist author, polemicist, and extraordinarily volatile\u00a0John Loftus<\/a>, who runs the ultra-insulting\u00a0Debunking Christianity<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. Dr. Madison made his cramped, insulated mentality clear in a\u00a0comment from 9-6-19<\/a>:<\/p>\n John\u00a0\u201cyou are an\u00a0idiot<\/em>!\u201d<\/a>\u00a0Loftus even went to the length of\u00a0changing his blog\u2019s rules of engagement<\/a>, so that he and Dr. Madison could avoid replying to yours truly, or even see\u00a0notices<\/em>\u00a0of my replies (er, sorry,\u00a0rants<\/em>, rather).<\/p>\n This is one of the replies to Dr. Madison\u2019s series,\u00a0\u201cThings we Wish Jesus Hadn\u2019t Said\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(podcast episodes 13-25). I have already replied to\u00a0every previous episode<\/a>. He states in his introduction to this second series:<\/p>\n [A]pologists (preachers and priests) who explain away\u2014well, they try\u2014the nasty and often grim message in many of the sayings attributed to Jesus. Indeed, the gospels are a minefield; many negatives about Jesus are in full view.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I am replying to episode 14, entitled, \u201cJesus equates sexual arousal with adultery\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(7-29-19).\u00a0 Dr. Madison\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Matthew 5:27-30<\/strong> (RSV) \u201cYou have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.\u2019\u00a0[28] But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.\u00a0[29] If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.\u00a0[30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dr. Madison pontificates:<\/p>\n First of all, adultery is a serious violation of trust. And it\u2019s caused so much pain and anguish. We don\u2019t need gods to tell us not to do it.<\/span><\/p>\n Great! I agree, and this is our common ground. Adultery is a bad thing, and Jesus and Christianity are against it. One would think we wouldn\u2019t even have to discuss<\/em> the issue, then. \u201cAll\u201d agree. But no such luck . . .<\/p>\n But anyone who suggests that sexual arousal \u2014 that old religious obsession of lust \u2014 can be equated with adultery, is just dead wrong. Yes, I\u2019m looking at you<\/em>, Jesus. . . . Sexual fantasies just pop into our heads. . . . We don\u2019t need some religious zealot standing over our shoulder, scolding us for lust: \u201cguess what, pal? You\u2019ve just committed adultery in your heart.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n I wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence. Sexual arousal itself is not the same thing as adultery; nor is it always the same thing as lust (it could<\/em> be in some<\/em> cases). What I profoundly disagree with is that Jesus is equating all sexual arousal with lust and adultery. It\u2019s not in the text. Dr. Madison has simply assumed<\/em> what ain\u2019t there, because, after all, we\u2019re talking about Christians<\/em>, and everyone \u201cknows\u201d that they hate sex<\/em>, right (even though secular sociological polls consistently reveal that committed, seriou<\/em>s Christians have more sexual happiness in marriage \u2014 and happier, more long-lasting marriages \u2014 than just about any other group)?<\/p>\n It seems that Christians and atheists can agree on the definition of lust: or at least whatever exists in lust that Christians object to. Dictionary.com<\/a>\u00a0defines it as follows:<\/p>\n Merriam-Webster<\/a> provides a definition (its first one) that is closer to the meaning of the biblical term, and standard usage in Christianity (and similar to #2 in Dictionary.com):<\/p>\n 1<\/span><\/span>:\u00a0<\/strong>usually intense or unbridled sexual desire\u00a0:\u00a0<\/strong>LASCIVIOUSNESS\u00a0<\/span><\/a>He was motivated more by\u00a0lust<\/span>\u00a0than by love.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note how \u201clasciviousness\u201d is provided as a synonym. If we go to that<\/em> entry<\/a>, it defines the word as synonymous with \u201clewd.\u201d If we go in turn to the definition of \u201clewd\u201d<\/a> it\u2019s this:<\/p>\n One gets the idea by now. This is not preaching or the Bible; it\u2019s two secular dictionaries. Lust is not simply sexual desire or arousal itself. It goes far beyond that. It\u2019s \u201cuncontrolled\u201d and \u201cunbridled\u201d and \u201clecherousness.\u201d It\u2019s \u201covermastering\u201d and associated with a \u201clust for power\u201d (a thing that isn\u2019t even necessarily sexual). It\u2019s \u201clascivious\u201d and the opposite of love. It\u2019s lewd, unchaste, licentious, obscene, and vulgar. Remember, this is simply dictionaries, not Christian manuals, written by old celibate men; killjoys who supposedly want to control what everyone does in the bedroom and make sure they are unhappy, unfulfilled, and miserable. But it almost sounds like an old-fashioned fire and brimstone sermon, doesn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n I think Christians and atheists can also readily agree that disordered desire is a bad thing, and that there is proper desire. We certainly disagree (quite a bit!) on where<\/em> the lines are drawn, but we agree that there are<\/em> such ethical \/ moral distinctions to be recognized. Even today, there are many areas of immoral sexuality, where virtually all people of all belief systems can and do agree; for example, rape, pedophilia, sexual abuse of all kinds, incest, bestiality, and sexual slavery and trafficking.<\/p>\n Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is talking about lust<\/em><\/strong> (i.e., what we have just seen defined, above), not all sexual desire. Dr. Madison is more than capable of figuring this out and grasping it. But he simply doesn\u2019t give a fig about accurately portraying Jesus\u2019 teaching. I\u2019ve already demonstrated how he\u2019s been consistently wrong and out to sea, 13 times; and this is (true to form) the 14th. But because of his extreme hostility, he makes this absurd argument.<\/p>\n Obviously then (these preliminaries out of the way), we can agree that lust is bad<\/em>, and that Jesus was right to condemn<\/em> it. It shouldn\u2019t be in the least bit controversial. It\u2019s only when Dr. Madison distorts<\/em> and lies<\/em> about Jesus\u2019 words and thoughts, that we have a serious problem. Jesus\u2019 reflections here are scarcely even arguable. It\u2019s the idea that great crimes and sins and wrongful acts have an origin in our minds before we commit them. This is not at all exclusive to religious thinking. It\u2019s the basis of degrees of charges for crime. Hence, premeditated murder is a much more serious charge because it was thought about<\/em>\u00a0beforehand and planned<\/em> in great detail. That\u2019s a lot more worthy of punishment than a crime of passion, committed in a momentary burst of anger.<\/p>\n So Jesus makes a point that should be readily understood and agreed with, with just a little reflection: \u201cevery one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.\u201d That\u2019s exactly right. The seeds and the essence of it are in the planning<\/em>, just as the essence of a premeditated murder lies in the original evil plans to carry it out. Therefore, we ought not lust, as it can lead to very bad things: for us and for those around us. Simply having a sexual desire arise is not evil. It\u2019s how we react<\/em> to it. Do we sustain<\/em> and \u201ccoddle\u201d it if it is a wrong desire? The desire can quickly transform into lust.<\/p>\n The Bible and Christianity are not opposed to sexual desire; only to\u00a0disordered<\/em> sexual desire (sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, non-procreative sex \u2014 as Catholics believe \u2014 forced sex, etc.). Hence, St. Paul in the Bible doesn\u2019t condemn sexual desires themselves<\/em> (towards a future spouse in this instance), but rather, uncontrolled<\/em> desires (i.e., lust):<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:9<\/strong> . . .\u00a0if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:36-37<\/strong>\u00a0If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry \u2014 it is no sin.\u00a0[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sexual desire is famously expressed (as perfectly good and permissible) in the Song of Solomon:<\/p>\n Song of Solomon<\/strong> 1:15-16<\/strong>\u00a0Behold, you are beautiful, my love;\u00a0behold, you are beautiful;\u00a0your eyes are doves.\u00a0[16] Behold, you are beautiful, my beloved,\u00a0truly lovely. . . .<\/p>\n Song of Solomon 2:5-6<\/strong> . . . I am sick with love.\u00a0[6] O that his left hand were under my head,\u00a0and that his right hand embraced me!<\/p>\n Song of Solomon\u00a04:5-7, 9-13<\/strong> Your two breasts are like two fawns,\u00a0twins of a gazelle,\u00a0that feed among the lilies.\u00a0[6] Until the day breathes\u00a0and the shadows flee,\u00a0I will hie me to the mountain of myrrh\u00a0and the hill of frankincense.\u00a0[7] You are all fair, my love;\u00a0there is no flaw in you. . . .\u00a0[9] You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride,\u00a0you have ravished my heart with a glance of your eyes,\u00a0with one jewel of your necklace.\u00a0[10] How sweet is your love, my sister, my bride!\u00a0how much better is your love than wine,\u00a0and the fragrance of your oils than any spice!\u00a0[11] Your lips distil nectar, my bride;\u00a0honey and milk are under your tongue;\u00a0the scent of your garments is like the scent of Lebanon.\u00a0[12] A garden locked is my sister, my bride,\u00a0a garden locked, a fountain sealed.\u00a0[13] Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates\u00a0with all choicest fruits, . . .<\/p>\n Song of Solomon<\/strong>\u00a07:6-10<\/strong>\u00a0How fair and pleasant you are,\u00a0O loved one, delectable maiden!\u00a0[7] You are stately as a palm tree,\u00a0and your breasts are like its clusters.\u00a0[8] I say I will climb the palm tree\u00a0and lay hold of its branches.\u00a0Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine,\u00a0and the scent of your breath like apples,\u00a0[9] and your kisses like the best wine\u00a0that goes down smoothly,\u00a0gliding over lips and teeth.\u00a0[10] I am my beloved\u2019s,\u00a0and his desire is for me.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Really puritanistic, Victorian, sexually repressed words and sentiments, ain\u2019t they?<\/p>\n This self-mutilation metaphor in this text is gross. Pluck out your eyes, cut off your hand. A great moral teacher could think of something better. Cult fanatics talk like this: before trying to get you to drink the Kool-Aid.<\/span><\/p>\n At least he has wits enough to recognize that it is a metaphor<\/em>. But once one does that, there is little objection left. In one of my 39 past refutations of Dr. Madison\u2019s nonsense (the first installment<\/a> of this very series), I wrote about how Jesus said, \u201cif you don\u2019t hate your family, you\u2019re not worthy of me.\u201d This is hyperbole: the extreme contrast. But in another Gospel, Jesus gives the literal meaning, which is how the hyperbole is interpreted: \u201cif you love your family\u00a0more<\/em>\u00a0than me, you\u2019re not worthy of me.\u201d<\/p>\n Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger catalogued \u201cover 200 distinct figures [in the Bible], several of them with from 30 to 40 varieties.\u201d That is a\u00a0 statement from the Introduction to his 1104-page tome,\u00a0Figures of Speech Used in the Bible<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(London: 1898). I have this work in my own library (hardcover). It\u2019s also\u00a0available for free, online<\/a>.\u00a0Bullinger\u00a0devotes six pages (423-428) to \u201cHyperbole; or, Exaggeration\u201d: which he defines as follows:<\/p>\n The figure is so called because the expression adds to the sense so much that it exaggerates it, and enlarges or diminishes it more than is really meant in fact. Or, when more is said than is meant to be literally understood, in order to heighten the sense.<\/p>\n It is the superlative degree applied to verbs and sentences and expressions or descriptions, rather than to mere adjectives. . . .<\/p>\n It was called by the Latins\u00a0superlatio<\/em>, a carrying beyond, an exaggerating.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I shall cite some of his more notable and obvious examples (omitting ellipses: \u201c. . .\u201d ):<\/p>\n Gen. ii. 24. \u2014 \u201cTherefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.\u201d This does not mean that he is to forsake and no longer to love or care for his parents. So Matt. xix. 5.<\/p>\n Ex. viii. 17. \u2014 \u201cAll the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt\u201d: i.e., wherever in all the land there was dust, it became lice.<\/p>\n I Sam. xxv. 37. \u2014 Nabal\u2019s \u201cheart died within him, and he became as a stone\u201d: i.e., he was terribly frightened and collapsed or fainted away.<\/p>\n Lam. ii. 11.\u2014 \u201cMy liver is poured upon the earth, etc\u201d: to express the depth of the Prophet\u2019s grief and sorrow at the desolations of Zion.<\/p>\n John xii. 19. \u2014 \u201cBehold, the world is gone after him.\u201d The enemies of the Lord thus expressed their indignation at the vast multitudes which followed Him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Gary Amirault highlights more biblical examples in\u00a0a similar article<\/a>:<\/p>\n [T]is verse is a hyperbole, an exaggeration for effect:<\/p>\n \u201cYou blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.\u201d (Matt. 23:24, NIV)<\/p>\n It is not too difficult to determine that this is a hyperbole, an exaggeration. Because the English language is full of Bible terms and phraseology, this Hebrew idiom has become part of the English language. Therefore most English speaking people know the real meaning of that phrase: \u201cYou pay close attention to little things but neglect the important things.\u201d [Dave: or, \u201cyou can\u2019t see the forest for the trees\u201d] . . .<\/p>\n \u201cIf thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out\u2026\u201d Matt. 5:29 (I met a Christian who actually tried to pluck out his right eye because he had a lust problem. This is an example the kind of problem a Bible translation can cause if one is not informed of the various figures of speech found in the Bible.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Dr. Madison concludes that this is flat-out bad and \u201cgross\u201d<\/span> teaching, and the stuff of \u201ccult fanatics.\u201d<\/span> The real<\/em> truth is that he (biblical studies doctorate and all) is \u2014 amazingly enough \u2014 simply unfamiliar<\/em> with the many sophisticated types and figures in the Bible, including hyperbole or exaggeration. He has to get up to speed and be properly educated, in order to understand and avoid contending for ludicrous things, as he has done (yet again!) here.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>MarCuesBo<\/a>\u00a0(7-28-16)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Replies to some of the most clueless atheist \u201carguments\u201d to ever enter the mind of a sentient human being . . .\u00a0 Dr. David Madison\u00a0is an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University.\u00a0 You can see (by the number in the title) how many […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":42229,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,31,123,172],"tags":[2519,1738,1043,745,258,2639,9137,335,525,10006,10003,6519,1367,9119,648,6522,10000,7723,581,9997],"class_list":["post-42223","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-bible-and-tradition","category-sexuality-and-gender-issues","category-trinitarianism-christology","tag-alleged-biblical-contradictions","tag-anti-christian-bigotry","tag-anti-theism","tag-anti-theists","tag-atheism","tag-atheist-exegesis","tag-atheist-hermeneutics","tag-atheists","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-christianity-lust","tag-christianity-sex","tag-contradictions-in-the-bible","tag-critiques-of-christianity","tag-david-madison","tag-debunking-christianity","tag-divine-inspiration","tag-jesus-lust","tag-lust","tag-sex","tag-sexual-desire"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n