Lust is when we intentionally want to the extent of intending to do something that is clearly wrong, given the opportunity. It must have the moral content of choice before something can be deemed to be wrong. Involuntary, unwilled reactions are not lust.
Wait a minute, what difference does it make what our definitions are of a particular biblical term? A dictionary of current english is the last place a Christian should look for the meaning of such a frought word as "lust".
How the word was used and intended when it was written in the original greek 2000 years ago ought to be the concern
Epistemaniac is doing exactly what a serious Christian should do when dealing with any biblical term.
He is merely copying and pasting, anyone can do that, and what the biblical term actually is differs with how he has used it.
__________________
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 12:1-2, NASB
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Collossians 3:14-15 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
He is merely copying and pasting, anyone can do that, and what the biblical term actually is differs with how he has used it.
sigh you just can't please some people... you asked for the definition or at least "a" definition of lust... you placed no parameters on where the definition could come from... you just asked
Ken, what is lust?
so if you specifically do not want to hear what commentators, dictionary's or lexicons say, which is rather absurd in my opinion, since these are the places we typically go for definitions isn’t it?!?!?! LOL ... but anyway... just say so to begin with... and I would not have gone to the trouble to hunt down the definitions for you…. since you apparently just want me to give my definition so you can disagree in the first place, and then just give your definition...... am I right…?
but since I did go to the trouble... what is it specifically that you disagree with?
But don’t despise commentators in favor of hearing yourself talk…. Remember that a commentator’s or other author’s definition of “lust” has to be at least as informed and valid as yours… right?
"In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for these great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt." (Spurgeon, Commenting on Commentaries)
blessings, ken
__________________ "The venerable dead are waiting in my library to entertain me and relieve me from the nonsense of surviving mortals." Samuel Davies 1723-1761
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." Erasumus 1466-1536
He is merely copying and pasting, anyone can do that, and what the biblical term actually is differs with how he has used it.
come to think of it, anyone can also just write out their own opinions on any given subject, the forums are flooded with opinions.... regardless if they have any real knowledge or expertise in that area of discussion or not. Or, in other words, just because a person takes the time to write out their own opinions, it does not follow that this will necessarily be a good thing, as they may be woefully uninformed and ignorant about the subject at hand. They may not necessarily be so, but then again, they may be, so copying and pasting may be a good thing when an opinion may be a bad thing, especially if the cutting and pasting comes from persons knowledgeable in the subject at hand, and in this case, all the excerpts were from persons who were indeed educated and informed in the area of discussion, regardless of whether or not one agrees with them or not. So just because anyone can copy and paste, its also true to say that "anyone can just write out their own opinions" as well....
blessings, ken
__________________ "The venerable dead are waiting in my library to entertain me and relieve me from the nonsense of surviving mortals." Samuel Davies 1723-1761
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." Erasumus 1466-1536
Oh durnit, is this turning into a hissy fight between a couple people?
Epistemaniac can be faulted first for using very outdated reference works (most of the ones available online are ancient -the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, for example, is from 1915) and second for relying more on commentaries than on just how the word is used in the Bible. But I don't see why his personal definition of “lust” should matter.
The original term that seems to have started this is discussion Jesus' use of the verb EPITHUMEO in Matt 5:28 “But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust (EPITHUMEO) for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” ISV
Here are some other examples of the word from the NT:
1 Peter 1:12 Even angels long (EPITHUMEO) to look into these things.
1Ti 3:1
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires (EPITHUMEO)
Mattt 13:17
For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired (EPITHUMEO) to see what you see, and did not see and to hear what you hear, and did not hear.
Ac 20:33
I have coveted (EPITHUMEO) no one's silver or gold or clothes.
Obviously the word has nothing inherent to do with sex.
Jesus use of it in Matthew comes straight from Deut 5:21 and Exodus 20:17, which says (in the Septuagint):
"You shall not covet (EPITHUMEO) your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
The use of “lust” to refer to sex primarily is not the way the term is used in the Bible at all -and it shouldn’t be used in that way in our interpretation of it. Unfortunately modern cultural use sees it almost entirely as about sex, rather than about greed, which is more its correct meaning. (Notice that "wife" is just another in the list of the neighbor's possessions). This explains, it seems to me, why Christians too often obsess about sex and ignore greed today.
I hope that’s helpful.
Last edited by Kencj; 1st November 2009 at 01:17 AM.
Oh durnit, is this turning into a hissy fight between a couple people?
Epistemaniac can be faulted first for using very outdated reference works (most of the ones available online are ancient -the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, for example, is from 1915) and second for relying more on commentaries than on just how the word is used in the Bible. But I don't see why his personal definition of “lust” should matter.
The original term that seems to have started this is discussion Jesus' use of the verb EPITHUMEO in Matt 5:28 “But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust (EPITHUMEO) for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” ISV
Here are some other examples of the word from the NT:
1 Peter 1:12 Even angels long (EPITHUMEO) to look into these things.
1Ti 3:1
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires (EPITHUMEO)
Mattt 13:17
For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired (EPITHUMEO) to see what you see, and did not see and to hear what you hear, and did not hear.
Ac 20:33
I have coveted (EPITHUMEO) no one's silver or gold or clothes.
Obviously the word has nothing inherent to do with sex.
Jesus use of it in Matthew comes straight from Deut 5:21 and Exodus 20:17, which says (in the Septuagint):
"You shall not covet (EPITHUMEO) your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
The use of “lust” to refer to sex primarily is not the way the term is used in the Bible at all -and it shouldn’t be used in that way in our interpretation of it. Unfortunately modern cultural use sees it almost entirely as about sex, rather than about greed, which is more its correct meaning. This explains, it seems to me, why Christians too often obsess about sex and ignore greed today.
sigh you just can't please some people... you asked for the definition or at least "a" definition of lust... you placed no parameters on where the definition could come from... you just asked
This is CHRISTIAN philosophy and ethics. Should I need to?
so if you specifically do not want to hear what commentators, dictionary's or lexicons say, which is rather absurd in my opinion, since these are the places we typically go for definitions isn’t it?!?!?! LOL ... but anyway... just say so to begin with... and I would not have gone to the trouble to hunt down the definitions for you…. since you apparently just want me to give my definition so you can disagree in the first place, and then just give your definition...... am I right…?
No, not really. If I wanted a copy/paste post, I would have specifically asked for it: what do commentators take from Matthe 5's definition of lust? I want to know how you think you're using the word.
but since I did go to the trouble... what is it specifically that you disagree with?
The fact that you copy/pasted entire segments of text rather than putting yourself in my shoes and see why I'm asking what lust is.
But don’t despise commentators in favor of hearing yourself talk….
I don't care about what I have to say, not right now, and that was not why I asked you what lust is. I asked because I want to see if your definition is actually congruent with what the Bible defines as lust.
Remember that a commentator’s or other author’s definition of “lust” has to be at least as informed and valid as yours… right?
I don't care about what you copy pasted, I want YOUR definition.
"
In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for these great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt." (Spurgeon, Commenting on Commentaries)
blessings, ken
I did not ask what you can copy/paste. I asked for how you're using the word.
__________________
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 12:1-2, NASB
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Collossians 3:14-15 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
come to think of it, anyone can also just write out their own opinions on any given subject, the forums are flooded with opinions.... regardless if they have any real knowledge or expertise in that area of discussion or not.
No kidding. How do you know I haven't been to Bible college, or studied Greek, or been mentored by men much older than myself with a background in such things? You don't. So, rather than questioning someone's opinion, why don't you answer my question so we can continue with logical discourse?
Or, in other words, just because a person takes the time to write out their own opinions, it does not follow that this will necessarily be a good thing, as they may be woefully uninformed and ignorant about the subject at hand. They may not necessarily be so, but then again, they may be, so copying and pasting may be a good thing when an opinion may be a bad thing, especially if the cutting and pasting comes from persons knowledgeable in the subject at hand, and in this case, all the excerpts were from persons who were indeed educated and informed in the area of discussion, regardless of whether or not one agrees with them or not.
Address the issue, not me.
So just because anyone can copy and paste, its also true to say that "anyone can just write out their own opinions" as well....
blessings, ken
Yes, exactly. So, why don't you post what you mean with your usage of the word 'lust' when you give the following opinion:
even if there were health benefits, if the bible forbids it in principle, it is still wrong... so he ends do not justify the means...
secondly, we have to always know what the motivation and the worldview of the people doing the research is... as is sometimes the case with homosexuality, many of the researchers who try to justify homosexualuty for whatever reason, do so because they themselves are homosexuals and (sometimes desperately) want to find ways to justify the behavior as being a legitimate alternative lifestyle because it is genetic or whatever.... so their methodology is suspect form the beginning... so too I wonder if those who are claiming such benefits are just themselves people who are seeking to justify the behavior.
thirdly even if there were health benefits, God would have the wisdom to have us refrain from the practice if He knew that whatever health benefits that there were (granting for the moment that the research is valid and that there are in fact benefits), these benefits do not outweigh the psychological and spiritual harm that comes from masturbating, as it cheapens the sex act, as sexual intercourse was designed by God to be between a husband and a wife, and masturbation most often involves fantasizing about a person that is not one's spouse. This of course is in violation of Matthew 5:27 - 29 (ESV) 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell."
It seems that it is also wrong in that masturbation involves fantasizing about engaging in sexual activity with a specific person without that person's permission. So it seems to violate that person's rights in some way as well, as one would expect that many men and women would object to the knowledge that a person was masturbating while fantasizing about them, and would thus feel defiled.
So, let me ask you again: what is lust? How are you using the word in the above argument?
__________________
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 12:1-2, NASB
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Collossians 3:14-15 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Oh durnit, is this turning into a hissy fight between a couple people?
Epistemaniac can be faulted first for using very outdated reference works (most of the ones available online are ancient -the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, for example, is from 1915) and second for relying more on commentaries than on just how the word is used in the Bible. But I don't see why his personal definition of “lust” should matter.
Hissy fit? I don't get involved in those, I have very specific boundaries for what I respond to.
__________________
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 12:1-2, NASB
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Collossians 3:14-15 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
