LUST IS ADULTERY Mt. 5:28

AFrazier · Mar 17, 2018

Douglas Hendrickson said:
Nice NON-ANSWER.

Led me to notice in accord with "your anointings and teachings,"

What I am already convicted of, something like that.

And I remembered - way I pretty well always saw it - ADULTERY IS SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH SOMEONE NOT MARRIED TO YOU
that is fornication
"wen one of yous is married to another" ...
THAT IS ADULTERY.

So to repeat, COITUS IS ALWAYS THEE PRECISE CRITERION.
ACTUAL COITUS IS ALWAYS THE PRECISE MARKER.

WITHOUT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE THERE IS NO ADULTERY.
Ever. Not possible.

Thee way it is.
Always was, always will be !
(Now I sound pretty sure of that already.)

YOUR WERE RIGHT IT IS SIMPLE.

/Blessed Jesus what did yE mean?

And with this you are finally at the precipice of what Jesus was trying to say. You have heard it said that you shall not commit adultery (precise criterion in your view being coitus), but I [Jesus] say that if you covet another man's wife (desire to have her with definable external quantification), then in your heart you have committed adultery with her already (even though coitus has not taken place).

Douglas Hendrickson · Mar 17, 2018

AFrazier said:
And with this you are finally at the precipice of what Jesus was trying to say. You have heard it said that you shall not commit adultery (precise criterion in your view being coitus), but I [Jesus] say that if you covet another man's wife (desire to have her with definable external quantification), then in your heart you have committed adultery with her already (even though coitus has not taken place).

SO,
What is your "definable external quantification"?

Is it definable?
WHAT IS IT'S DEFINITION? (Or is it only definable and never has a definition?)

I noticed something about your "taking her" (of "desiring to take her," of course), that a guy may take somebody AND his wife,
(to the lake or something) ...

TO BE IN THE REALM OF NO SIMPLICITY, I think.
(I sure heard what Jesus said about "definable external quantification," didn't I?)

Douglas Hendrickson · Mar 17, 2018

AFrazier said:
You shall not commit adultery (precise criterion in your view being coitus

SO WE SHOULD THROW AWAY THE PRECISE CRITERION?

For what - I have yet to hear for what?

Douglas Hendrickson · Mar 17, 2018

WHAT, by the way, is "ADULTERY IN THE HEART," if you think there is any such thing.

How do you relate "in the heart committed adultery" to real for sure adultery that is marked by sexual intercourse?

(Not even necessarily saying it is only marked in that way.)

Douglas Hendrickson · Mar 17, 2018

That is a (good?) idea, that what Jesus was contrasting with his additional requirements was, "YE KNOW THAT YOU SHOULD NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," where adultery is (was) defined by coitus.

"But I say unto you, consider also _____________

Is it really additional requirements that Jesus was giving us? That is, WAS HE MAKING THE LAW MORE ONEROUS?

So, at what point does coveting become adultery, at what point of desiring to possess another man's wife ...? (TRYING to sleep, something like that?)

Steve Petersen · Mar 17, 2018

Mountainmanbob said:
67 years old and still working on the 3 second rule. If I'm looking ( staring) at a pretty lady for more than 3 seconds chances are I'm sinning (unless in simple conversation.) I have been fighting this battle for years. The Bible verse weighs heavy on my heart.
M-Bob

He also said anyone who is angry with their brother has committed murder. Are we all murderers too?

Jesus words are a call to higher piety using hyperbole.

AFrazier · Mar 17, 2018

Douglas Hendrickson said:
That is a (good?) idea, that what Jesus was contrasting with his additional requirements was, "YE KNOW THAT YOU SHOULD NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," where adultery is (was) defined by coitus.

"But I say unto you, consider also _____________

Is it really additional requirements that Jesus was giving us? That is, WAS HE MAKING THE LAW MORE ONEROUS?

So, at what point does coveting become adultery, at what point of desiring to possess another man's wife ...? (TRYING to sleep, something like that?)

Bro, it's clear to me that you are trying to argue that lascivious behavior is okay.

If you want to be a swinger and have almost-sex with your buddy's wife and call it "okay" because it's not "technically" adultery, then whatever. If it floats your boat. It's between you and God. But do the rest of us a favor and stop trying to justify almost-sex with someone else's wife. None of us agree with you.

Douglas Hendrickson · Mar 17, 2018

AFraizier said:
If you want to be a swinger and have almost-sex with your buddy's wife and call it "okay" because it's not "technically" adultery, then whatever. If it floats your boat. It's between you and God. But do the rest of us a favor and stop trying to justify almost-sex with someone else's wife. None of us agree with you.

Just because I want to explore Matthew 5:28 in depth, I don't think it warrants you suggesting I want to be some kind of "swinger."
Not very nice to make it personal, a personal attack!

Should I suggest perhaps someone is a murderer (AT HEART?) because he appears to be angry at me?
That seems to be how some interpret Scripture.

Douglas Hendrickson · Mar 17, 2018

Mountainmanbob said: ↑
"67 years old and still working on the 3 second rule. If I'm looking ( staring) at a pretty lady for more than 3 seconds chances are I'm sinning (unless in simple conversation.) I have been fighting this battle for years. The Bible verse weighs heavy on my heart.
M-Bob"

Steve Petersen said:
He also said anyone who is angry with their brother has committed murder. Are we all murderers too?

Jesus words are a call to higher piety using hyperbole.

SO, are you saying he should keep fighting that battle?
Or not?

AFrazier · Mar 17, 2018

Douglas Hendrickson said:
AFraizier said:
If you want to be a swinger and have almost-sex with your buddy's wife and call it "okay" because it's not "technically" adultery, then whatever. If it floats your boat. It's between you and God. But do the rest of us a favor and stop trying to justify almost-sex with someone else's wife. None of us agree with you.

Just because I want to explore Matthew 5:28 in depth, I don't think it warrants you suggesting I want to be some kind of "swinger."
Not very nice to make it personal, a personal attack!

Should I suggest perhaps someone is a murderer (AT HEART?) because he appears to be angry at me?
That seems to be how some interpret Scripture.

Look, you've been angling towards this "If I kiss her in depth BUT NO COITUS" nonsense for like two pages now. Your examples are all swinger type garbage. And you're arguing with me about what constitutes adultery and covetousness. There are no personal attacks here. You are conspicuously attempting to justify lasciviousness, and I don't agree with you. What's more ... I think your attempts are in poor taste, since someone else of a weaker faith might take your wicked logic to heart.

Douglas Hendrickson · Mar 18, 2018

AFrazier said:
Look, you've been angling towards this "If I kiss her in depth BUT NO COITUS" nonsense for like two pages now. Your examples are all swinger type garbage. And you're arguing with me about what constitutes adultery and covetousness. There are no personal attacks here. You are conspicuously attempting to justify lasciviousness, and I don't agree with you. What's more ... I think your attempts are in poor taste, since someone else of a weaker faith might take your wicked logic to heart.

You address ME PERSONALLY about "whatever floats your boat," "between you and God.," and "do the rest of us a favor," which is NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUES of the thread or the post. And I am pretty sure against CF rules. (Am tempted to say I won't report you if you apologize, yet I don't want to be even more obnoxious than I apparently already am.) I TOO really should not at all be addressing YOU but only the issues.

Anyway, it is quite fine to point out that some of what was said about what Matthew 5:28 might mean seems to be "conspicuously attempting to justify lasciviousness."
I agree that the Bible seems to condemn "lasciviousness," and wonder when what is referred to as such also seems quite a lot to be about ACTIONS rather than merely things of the heart.
I would appreciate more talk about lasciviousness.

You can say what I have said it nonsense and garbage - I think it has been a serious attempt to be clear about what can truly be said about what Jesus said.
I believe the only "wicked" logic I have presented is that which questioned whether some form of coveting can be considered adultery, especially in the formulations you provided.

AFrazier · Mar 18, 2018

Douglas Hendrickson said:
You address ME PERSONALLY about "whatever floats your boat," "between you and God.," and "do the rest of us a favor," which is NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUES of the thread or the post. And I am pretty sure against CF rules. (Am tempted to say I won't report you if you apologize, yet I don't want to be even more obnoxious than I apparently already am.) I TOO really should not at all be addressing YOU but only the issues.

Anyway, it is quite fine to point out that some of what was said about what Matthew 5:28 might mean seems to be "conspicuously attempting to justify lasciviousness."
I agree that the Bible seems to condemn "lasciviousness," and wonder when what is referred to as such also seems quite a lot to be about ACTIONS rather than merely things of the heart.
I would appreciate more talk about lasciviousness.

You can say what I have said it nonsense and garbage - I think it has been a serious attempt to be clear about what can truly be said about what Jesus said.
I believe the only "wicked" logic I have presented is that which questioned whether some form of coveting can be considered adultery, especially in the formulations you provided.

Let's be clear about the questions you've asked.

Douglas Hendrickson said:
So if a guy intimately "fools around" with a woman who is not his wife and/or is someone else's wife, and both are firmly resolved NEVER TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, and maybe even do the fooling around in a context where all spouses know the "loving" is happening (mutual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] being the ultimate idea), DEFINITELY NOT EVER doing anything that might result in pregnancy, for instance, then is there anything in what Jesus said that would in fact forbid this?

Never any attempt to have coitus, dismissing any thought that that might at all be desirable, is that okay with God? To have LOVING ("sex") WITHOUT ADULTERY, without coitus, not only being the reality but the totally understood and practiced reality, in principle and in accord with Matthew 5:28, would there be anything wrong with that?

What you're inquiring about here in this quote is whether it's okay to "intimately" "fool around" with a woman who may be another man's wife. The objective is to never have sexual intercourse, but to do the "fooling around" in a context of mutual knowledge with all parties involved, with the goal of "mutual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]," so long as coitus itself is not employed as the means of achieving this goal.

So you are speaking of spouses (plural) who have full knowledge of non-coitus, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-yielding intimate contact with extra-marital partners.

Now, I answered your questions on these matters many posts ago, and you are still defending them. You are still arguing. You are still nit-picking. You are trying to be right in saying that Christ is not condemning such behavior. You are not making a "serious attempt to be clear about what can truly be said about what Jesus said." You are playing the devil's advocate and trying to justify swinger behavior by scrutinizing what Jesus said.

You're wrong.

Yes, I am addressing you personally. You made the post. It is you and me who are discussing this. Addressing someone else who is not part of this exchange seems a bit ridiculous. If you want to report me for saying that you're wrong in defending or justifying lasciviousness, you go right ahead. If the forum wants to defend wickedness and delete my post or ban me, or whatever, for calling you out in what you're defending, then I don't need to be here anyway.

Douglas Hendrickson · Mar 18, 2018

AFrazier said:
Let's be clear about the questions you've asked.

What you're inquiring about here in this quote is whether it's okay to "intimately" "fool around" with a woman who may be another man's wife. The objective is to never have sexual intercourse, but to do the "fooling around" in a context of mutual knowledge with all parties involved, with the goal of "mutual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]," so long as coitus itself is not employed as the means of achieving this goal.

So you are speaking of spouses (plural) who have full knowledge of non-coitus, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-yielding intimate contact with extra-marital partners.

Now, I answered your questions on these matters many posts ago, and you are still defending them. You are still arguing. You are still nit-picking. You are trying to be right in saying that Christ is not condemning such behavior. You are not making a "serious attempt to be clear about what can truly be said about what Jesus said." You are playing the devil's advocate and trying to justify swinger behavior by scrutinizing what Jesus said.

You're wrong.

Yes, I am addressing you personally. You made the post. It is you and me who are discussing this. Addressing someone else who is not part of this exchange seems a bit ridiculous. If you want to report me for saying that you're wrong in defending or justifying lasciviousness, you go right ahead. If the forum wants to defend wickedness and delete my post or ban me, or whatever, for calling you out in what you're defending, then I don't need to be here anyway.

One at Christian Forums is not supposed to address anyone, only the questions being considered based on real issues.
Look, I never said I want to report you. More like the opposite. Only that I should in accord with the rules. But I do or at least somewhat did want you to acknowledge you have attacked me personally and that is wrong.

You seem to think it is okay because you have such a noble cause and it is only you and I talking to each other. When the ostensible reason for the personal criticism is there are weaker minds at CF that may be wrongly influenced. Maybe guilt for not noticing possible supposed lasciviousness on Jesus's mind earlier?

The elements you seem to object most to were mostly here to satisfy you; rather than answer my questions about what you say about Matthew 5:28, you demanded to know what consequences I might have in mind with regard to resolving the question of what Jesus was really trying to say. It was only to be helpful to you that I presented a hypothetical situation. Now you accuse me of wanting "swinging" licentiousness because I came up with a possibility.

The OP, what is supposed to be adhered to in terms of the parameters of discussion, what this is supposed to be about, is "NEVER HAVE THE LUST OF ACTUAL ADULTEROUS SEXUAL INTERCOURSE." Whether this admonition is mostly what Matthew 5:28 actually says when referencing "hath committed adultery with her ... already."
So my most recent approach to this was to ask what "adultery in heart" could possibly mean. Sure I am continuing to argue, but not mere nit-picking, I think. Asking you what you could possibly mean by YOUR CLAIM about "definable external quantification," what could that possibly mean? It was not me going on about being intimate with someone else's wife.

AFrazier · Mar 18, 2018

Douglas Hendrickson said:
One at Christian Forums is not supposed to address anyone, only the questions being considered based on real issues.
Look, I never said I want to report you. More like the opposite. Only that I should in accord with the rules. But I do or at least somewhat did want you to acknowledge you have attacked me personally and that is wrong.

You seem to think it is okay because you have such a noble cause and it is only you and I talking to each other. When the ostensible reason for the personal criticism is there are weaker minds at CF that may be wrongly influenced. Maybe guilt for not noticing possible supposed lasciviousness on Jesus's mind earlier?

The elements you seem to object most to were mostly here to satisfy you; rather than answer my questions about what you say about Matthew 5:28, you demanded to know what consequences I might have in mind with regard to resolving the question of what Jesus was really trying to say. It was only to be helpful to you that I presented a hypothetical situation. Now you accuse me of wanting "swinging" licentiousness because I came up with a possibility.

The OP, what is supposed to be adhered to in terms of the parameters of discussion, what this is supposed to be about, is "NEVER HAVE THE LUST OF ACTUAL ADULTEROUS SEXUAL INTERCOURSE." Whether this admonition is mostly what Matthew 5:28 actually says when referencing "hath committed adultery with her ... already."
So my most recent approach to this was to ask what "adultery in heart" could possibly mean. Sure I am continuing to argue, but not mere nit-picking, I think. Asking you what you could possibly mean by YOUR CLAIM about "definable external quantification," what could that possibly mean? It was not me going on about being intimate with someone else's wife.

Look, I'm not attacking you. You have made statements defending lasciviousness. I have called you out on them. I haven't called you names. I have addressed what you posted. Nothing more.

Now let me repeat myself once again ... you were given answers to your hypotheticals. You clearly don't accept those answers. So IF YOU THINK I'M WRONG, and that FOOLING AROUND WITH ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE WITHOUT ACTUAL COITUS is okay, then you are supporting lasciviousness.

Sorry if the truth hurts.

mark kennedy · Mar 18, 2018

Douglas Hendrickson said:
The OP, what is supposed to be adhered to in terms of the parameters of discussion, what this is supposed to be about, is "NEVER HAVE THE LUST OF ACTUAL ADULTEROUS SEXUAL INTERCOURSE." Whether this admonition is mostly what Matthew 5:28 actually says when referencing "hath committed adultery with her ... already."
So my most recent approach to this was to ask what "adultery in heart" could possibly mean. Sure I am continuing to argue, but not mere nit-picking, I think. Asking you what you could possibly mean by YOUR CLAIM about "definable external quantification," what could that possibly mean? It was not me going on about being intimate with someone else's wife.

I get the distinct impression from the context of Matthew 5 that Jesus is saying just looking at a woman with lust in your heart is just as bad as sleeping with her. I remember in Job's apology (defense) he mentions:

“I made a covenant with my eyes
not to look lustfully at a young woman. (Job 31:1)

He is actually saying if I did this, I deserve judgment but I haven't.

“If my heart has been enticed by a woman,
or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door, (Job 31:9)

Notice the progression, 'if my heart has been enticed', then 'If I lurked at my neighbors door'. Jesus describes a similar progression, 'if your eye offends thee', then, 'if your foot offends thee', finally 'if you hand offends thee'. You see, you want, you take steps toward, then finally you take. Jesus tells us, if you want to be righteous, it comes down to what is going on in the privacy of your own heart that is leading you into sin. He is not just saying lust is as bad as adultery, he is saying it is adulatory.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Eloy Craft · Mar 18, 2018

Douglas Hendrickson said:
So, at what point does coveting become adultery, at what point of desiring to possess another man's wife ...? (TRYING to sleep, something like that?)

Coveting is not a sexual sin. In fact one can covet another man's wife and not lust for her. Conversely, one can lust for a woman who isn't married but commit adultery in the heart. Jesus was addressing the sin of lust not the sin of coveting. Jesus was addressing lust for another woman not coveting another woman. Isn't that odd since adultery is sex with another man's wife not just any woman? Why doesn't Jesus make that distinction for adultery in the heart like the act of sex with another man's wife? To commit the act of adultery adulterates a marriage. It's because sex is for marriage that lust in the heart for any woman adulterates marriage in the heart.

mark kennedy · Mar 18, 2018

Eloy Craft said:
Coveting is not a sexual sin. In fact one can covet another man's wife and not lust for her. Conversely, one can lust for a woman who isn't married but commit adultery in the heart. Jesus was addressing the sin of lust not the sin of coveting. Jesus was addressing lust for another woman not coveting another woman. Isn't that odd since adultery is sex with another man's wife not just any woman? Why doesn't Jesus make that distinction for adultery in the heart like the act of sex with another man's wife? To commit the act of adultery adulterates a marriage. It's because sex is for marriage that lust in the heart for any woman adulterates marriage in the heart.

Covetousness and sexual immorality are related:

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. (Col. 3:5)

Douglas Hendrickson · Mar 18, 2018

mark kennedy said:
Jesus tells us, if you want to be righteous, it comes down to what is going on in the privacy of your own heart that is leading you into sin. He is not just saying lust is as bad as adultery, he is saying it is adulatory.

Consider, "... to be righteous, it comes down to what is going on in the privacy of your own heart that is leading you into sin."

This may be true - I don't really see it clearly in what Jesus says.
One can imagine OTHER PEOPLE, for instance, been much more influential in some one individual's life than the person's own heart. Being lead into sin might be from external sources much more than one'w own heart, for instance a state that has very immoral laws and demands they be obeyed by everyone.

But even if actually true, it talks about "heart that is leading you into sin." "Leading into" is different than the sin itself, the actual sin. Two things, 2 different things.
There is NO saying, "lust is as bad as adultery," far's I can see.
Can you point to anything in Scripture that says that? (Or is it just your ad hoc invention?)

And I take it you are saying, "LUST IS ADULTERY."
(Though you actually spell out that Jesus is saying it is ADULATORY, which ironically means "praiseworthy.")
Anyway, I don't think it can be BOTH what leads to the sin itself, AND the sin itself.
Do you?
If something leads to something else, then it is something else, and not that selfsame thing.
Surely it could not lead to something else if is (already is) that something else.
So, with the way things are phrased here in terms of "leading to," lust cannot be adultery.

Lust leads to sin (adultery).
It would have nowhere to go if it were already sin.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOING SOMETHING AND THINKING OF DOING SOMETHING.

A real difference.
Hence the thought IS NEVER ITSELF THE ACTION.

THE THOUGHT ITSELF IS NEVER THE ACTION.
The lust is not the sin it may lead you into ...

One reason a homosexual "orientation" may not be at all something to be punished for by God (or anyone else) is that INDEED thought is not action sin or sin action. SIN ACTION.

The idea is that thought alone CANNOT transgress THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.
Is this idea true or untrue?

Eloy Craft · Mar 19, 2018

If lustful thoughts are habitual entertainment a fantasy life of sin and lust obstructs faith and the senses become numb to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. The will becomes servant to the flesh and it's object is not the good of God but the good of the. senses. That's sin.

AFrazier · Mar 19, 2018

Eloy Craft said:
Coveting is not a sexual sin. In fact one can covet another man's wife and not lust for her. Conversely, one can lust for a woman who isn't married but commit adultery in the heart. Jesus was addressing the sin of lust not the sin of coveting. Jesus was addressing lust for another woman not coveting another woman. Isn't that odd since adultery is sex with another man's wife not just any woman? Why doesn't Jesus make that distinction for adultery in the heart like the act of sex with another man's wife? To commit the act of adultery adulterates a marriage. It's because sex is for marriage that lust in the heart for any woman adulterates marriage in the heart.

The reason why you're mistaken in this is that Jesus actually uses the word covet, not lust. Lust is an English translation. The Greek word used in this passage is the identical word Paul uses when listing the ten commandments.

Ergo, if you are coveting another man's wife, then you are lusting for her.

Also, you can't commit adultery with someone who isn't married. Nor can you covet a woman who doesn't belong to a man. So you can't lust for (covet) a woman who isn't married. Nor can you commit adultery in your heart if she is not married. Adultery requires someone in the scenario to be married.

LUST IS ADULTERY Mt. 5:28

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Myth only points, Truth happened!

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Myth only points, Truth happened!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads