Mainstream Christianity is wrong about Matthew 5:27-28 (the famous “lust” passage)

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

Elear said:
Lust is not necessarily a sexual term. There is also such a thing as a "lust for power" or a "lust for money". Similar to the Greek word, it also meant (historically) strong (and morally acceptable) or excessive (morally unacceptable, which is its more common usage now) desire of different kinds for many different things.

lust | Origin and meaning of lust by Online Etymology Dictionary
Strong's Greek: 1937. ἐπιθυμέω (epithumeó) -- desire, lust after

I wonder what word Jesus used originally. Was he speaking in Aramaic or in Greek in the passage we are discussing? I wouldn't put too much emphasis on one word versus another, because it's possible that even the "original Greek" word in the manuscripts is a translation of an Aramaic word that Jesus used, or part of a paraphrase or summary of his message.

Fair point. Thanks.

Kettriken · Mar 14, 2021

Jamdoc said:
He's probably getting it from 1 Corinthians 11

Originally God just created Man. Man walked with God and something was not right. God gave Adam a bunch of pets, still didn't fulfill the need (which I guess was loneliness), so God made woman from man, for man, to solve the problem of man's loneliness.
But Paul continues, after that fact, that men and women need each other mutually. After the initial creation of woman, which was for man, men came from women, so it balanced out.

Oh, believe me, I'm familiar with the scripture on this

I just didn't think it was particularly appropriate to to the discussion. In fact, I think its particularly inappropriate to the discussion, but I appreciate your balancing it out

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

Jamdoc said:
part of it is also demonstrating that living sinlessly is impossible and that we need Him as a savior because we cannot do what our father commands under our own power.

What of the Christians who believe it is possible to live sinlessly?

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

DamianWarS said:
I think we need to interpret it consistently with the context. In the the same text Jesus reduces murder to not plotting to murder but all the way to anger. So it would seem consistent that adultery is reduced to not plotting to engage in sexual relations but all the way to the fantasy. Because murder starts from anger and adultery, or a strong desire to commit, starts from a look. Jesus is not telling us the loop holes he's telling us the sin is committed in the heart first.

I understand your point, but anger is quite different from desire. There are kinds of desire that are totally acceptable in the Bible. Also, perhaps I described it badly: It’s not necessarily an explicit act of “plotting” that I think classifies as covetousness. For instance, I think obsessively thinking “Man, I would really love to seduce my friend’s wife when he’s out of town next week” is just as much of a sin as “He’ll be gone on x particular day; I’ll go over at y time.” One is obviously more vague than the other, but the intent is still clearly present. And back to the Matthew passage, again: Adultery is different because the “thought sin” that leads to this one has already been laid out in the law before (and it’s called the 10th commandment). And the reason we know it’s referring to covetousness and not something lesser, is because of what Paul says in Romans: that lust = covetousness.

DamianWarS said:
Christ tells us to love our neighbour as ourself. It tends to be easy for guys to say that they have no problem with girls "lusting" over them but try and change that to your daughter or wife. Do you wish other men to fantasize about these women in your life? If the answer is no, neither should you fantasize about other women.

Yes. If fantasizing is not wrong, why would I see a problem with that?

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

Rene Loup said:
Taking the ENTIRE Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew chapters five through seven, it consistently teaches the person's motive mattering more than the deed itself. Basically, we are judged for word, deed, AND THOUGHT. God knows we will be more than happy to act on our fantasies, especially if there are no consequences for doing so (Luke 16:1-15, Psalm 14:1-7, 53:1-6, Romans 3:9-20). Otherwise, why would we need laws in the first place, let alone with consequences? (Exodus 20:1-17, Leviticus 18:1-30)[1][2][3]

Every movement begins with an action. Every action begins with an idea. In the case of sex-related crime, what is the idea, and where does it come from? Again, taking the entire Sermon on the Mount, why is this sex-related part of the sermon an exception to everything else preached about? Is an [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] worth hurting others over? Why or why not?

I remember having a conversation with my mentor about psychopaths. On the outside, many seem like intelligent, charming people. However, are they actually right in the head? Why or why not?

76 Things Banned in Leviticus (and their penalties) - ***Dave Does the Blog

Justice Laws Website

Federal Laws and Regulations | USAGov

May I ask how an [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] in the privacy of one’s own bedroom is going to hurt someone? Especially if the person being fantasized about, either lives far away, is a movie star, or isn’t even a real person at all (imaginary). This sex-related part of the sermon is *not* an exception, because obviously coveting a real neighbor’s real wife could lead to hurting people. But fantasizing about the other things I mentioned? How…? It would be totally unrelated to the specific situation Christ was speaking of…

Kettriken · Mar 14, 2021

Billy93 said:
most times when a guy fantasizes he just wants a visual aid for a few minutes - it’s not that he is actually thinking “I actually would like to have sexual relations with this person if given the chance.” I can imagine flying a plane in my mind (used to want to be a pilot when I was younger), but that doesn’t mean I’d actually want to fly one (I’d be much too afraid these days). I can imagine riding a scary ride at a theme park, but that doesn’t mean I’d actually get on the ride if a friend asked me to. It’s the exact same thing.

Really? Thinking about a woman, a flesh and blood sister in Christ, is the exact same thing as thinking about riding a roller coaster? If you would keep your argument to pretend fantasies I'd likely agree with you, but stuff like this takes it a good step too far.

I'm really not trying to be acrimonious, and I apologize if my previous post was a bit too much that way. I do appreciate that you acknowledge the people who have presented you with thoughtful challenges to position. It would just be more helpful if you wrestled a little with the translated scripture behind some of them.

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

dqhall said:
Lust is wanting sex, is it not?

In our modern understanding of the word, lust is apparently any and all fantasizing about sex.

dqhall said:
How could a man look at a woman and be guilty of adultery, if he did not want sex?

Huh? Sorry, I still don’t think you’re understanding my argument. Of course the man in question wanted sex. Where did I ever imply he didn’t?

dqhall said:
What do you think lust meant 2000 yrs ago?

I think it meant exactly what the Scripture says it meant, which is that Christ was referring to the same concept as the 10th commandment. Which is more than just fantasizing.

dqhall said:
Fantasy of having sex with a married woman could get a man in serious trouble with a jealous husband.

Oh, I don’t disagree there; in fact I would argue that a man who actively fantasizes about a married woman (if she is someone he knows) is being very foolish.

dqhall said:
A man with many sexual fantasies is heading for trouble. Lusting for an unmarried woman who does not want the man infatuated with her might result in a sexual harassment or stalking complaint.

Not sure I quite follow the logic here. Anything that would involve a sexual harassment or stalking complaint is far beyond what I would call lust/fantasizing… Why would an unmarried woman know that a guy imagined her for a few minutes one night? Makes no sense.

dqhall said:
Now you have not convinced me you have proof of being able to distinguish between what is fantasy lust and what is real lust. Lust sets a man’s mind on a path that might do damage.

How does imagining sex for a few minutes out of a day (maybe even only out of every few days or a week) “set a man’s mind on a path that might do damage”? We spend far more time thinking about/doing other activities throughout our day, but people by and large seem more concerned with a few minutes of sexual thoughts. I don’t get it.

dqhall said:
One who fantasized about inappropriate content for many hours found himself in bed with a prostitute. She is not easily satisfied. It is a path that leads to death. You might read Proverbs. Do not go to the house of the adulteress. Perhaps you fantasized kissing a woman, but did not ever embrace her. If it was not adultery, it might have been a waste of time.

This is like the difference between having a single beer once a day/once a week, and being an alcoholic. Just because some people are alcoholics, doesn’t mean that no one should ever be allowed to drink. By the same token, obviously if someone is being led to commit (or even hope to commit) actual sexual acts, then that is a problem. But just because some people are like that, doesn’t mean all are. I fantasized for years without even touching a woman, and I’ve had relationships with women who were so conservative that they didn’t even want to kiss before the wedding day. I had no problem respecting their boundaries. If anything, the fantasizing probably helped out. Not everyone is the same/struggles with the same things. One person sees a beer and knows he can handle it; another sees it and knows he’ll be blackout-drunk a few hours later if he so much as starts to take a sip.

Lifelong_sinner · Mar 14, 2021

1. when you sin, the part that matters most is that you sinned against God. its possible to carry out a victimless sin.
2. fantasizing IS a sin.
3. OSAS is Biblical.
4. are you sure you're saved?? i know im not, so i have no qualms with asking you that.

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

ViaCrucis said:
You can't find a single verse in Scripture that says that human beings are sinful, selfish and held captive to the flesh?

Luke 6:25
Matthew 25:42
Isaiah 58:7
Luke 3:11
Proverbs 19:17
James 2:15-16
1 John 3:17-18
Proverbs 14:31
Proverbs 22:9
Galatians 6:2
Romans 12:20
Deuteronomy 15:11

-CryptoLutheran

So is enjoying (or thinking about enjoying) our 5 senses in other ways, also sinful? Or is it just a few minutes of thinking about sex?

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Paul says we have the mind of Christ in 1 Corinthians 2:16. Obviously Christ kept himself pure and He did not sin.

Obviously this is correct. But you are operating under the assumption that something is a sin.

Bible Highlighter said:
So if we have the mind of Christ, we will not justify the idea that we can have evil adulterous thoughts towards others.

A few minutes of imagining sex is an “adulterous thought”? Where does the Bible say that? First off, wouldn’t the thought have to be about a married individual (or for the thinker to be married) to be adulterous, since the Bible clearly defines adultery? Secondly, wouldn’t the thought have to qualify as 10th commandment covetousness to be sinful?

Bible Highlighter said:
It is neither loving towards God or our neighbor to have such thoughts. Both Jesus, the apostle Peter, and the apostle John laid the framework for how mind sins can condemn us (Matthew 5:28-30, 2 Peter 2:1, 2 Peter 2:14, 1 John 3:15).

But again, you are operating under the assumption that it is a sin.

Bible Highlighter said:
The Christian life is one of self denial and not in enjoying things that are sinful. We are to offer our bodies as a willing sacrifice unto God (Romans 12:1).

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:2).

Yes. And we do deny ourselves, by staying away from fornication, extramarital sex, homosexual acts, and any other number of actual sexual sins the Bible lists. The world practices these sins daily; we are not supposed to.

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Having sexual thoughts that are outside of the one you are married to is wrong and God will condemn men for this sin if they don’t repent of such a sin.

Where does it say that?

Bible Highlighter said:
“And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” (2 Timothy 2:19).

I agree that we should depart from iniquity, but the Bible does not say that simply imagining sexual relations for a few minutes, is a sin.

Bible Highlighter said:
If one overcomes the sin of sexual fantasies, they will see how it was evil and wrong before God. Most do not want to give up this sin because they find it highly pleasurable. Men of this world like to fantasize about women. It’s normal for the guys of this world to do this. But that which is esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16:15).

Shouldn’t the Bible tell us plainly that it is evil and wrong, if it is? This is not something new under the sun; people have had sexual fantasies since biblical times. I have told God repeatedly that I am willing (and want) to give it up if it is in fact a sin, but I am still just not seeing that it is. Matthew 5:27-28 directly refers to the 10th commandment; mere “fantasizing” does not meet the criteria of the 10th commandment. I am absolutely giving up what Christ refers to in Matthew 5:27-28 aka covetousness; I have no intention to actually meet up and commit sexual immorality with a woman ever again.

Jamdoc · Mar 14, 2021

Billy93 said:
What of the Christians who believe it is possible to live sinlessly?

1 John 1:8
They're deceiving themselves.

Neogaia777 · Mar 14, 2021

Billy93 said:
This is the go-to passage for people to condemn “lust,” which our modern ears automatically equate to mean “sexual fantasy.” However, I think taking a closer look at the words reveals that this passage has been long-misinterpreted, used to shame people (especially young men) for any and all sexual thoughts. And as we should know well by now, just because mainstream Christianity says something, doesn't mean they're right; we ultimately need to look to Scripture and make sure we're properly understanding the meaning of the words.

I will invariably be accused by some of “trying to justify sin.” But as Paul said in Romans 7:7, “I had not known sin, but by the law.” We have to know what God's Word actually condemns. So, how do we find out? The answer is actually in the same verse:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Romans 7:7 KJV

First off, it is worth noting that many modern translations actually use “covet” for the first word instead of “lust,” so that the verse appears to refer only to covetousness. (This is an example where the KJV really shines.)

For example:

“For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” NIV

“I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, ‘You must not covet.’” NLT

“For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” ESV

“For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.’” NKJV

The reason these modern versions do this is because both instances are actually the same word in Greek: epithumeó. However, this misses the essential point worth being aware of, which is that epithumeó is also the exact same “lust” word used by Jesus in the Matthew passage.

So, the Bible is very clear on this: The Bible tells us that epithumeó lusting is the same thing as the coveting of the OT. Therefore in order to understand what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:27-28, we need to go back to the context of the OT and discover what exactly coveting meant. In other words, when Paul tells us in Romans 7:7 to look at the 10th commandment to understand what Matthew 5 lust is, that is where we need to look.

The context in which desire is used in the 10th commandment, helps us understand exactly what kind of desire God is condemning. When condemning covetousness in the 10th commandment (Exodus 20:17), God mentions things like a man's house and his cattle, alongside things like his wife and his servants. Well, if God was simply saying it was wrong to find a man's house desirable, then that would mean that no person could ever sell another person their house, and real estate transactions would be sinful. If God was saying a man could not find another man's cattle desirable, then farmers would go out of business because they could not buy or sell cattle. So, we know God is not condemning a person finding things that belong to another, desirable.

Instead, what God is condemning is the strong desire (to the point of planning) to wrongly use or possess something that does not belong to us. He is condemning thoughts of plotting theft, not mere thoughts of desire. And in the context of sex, he not condemning a man finding a woman sexually desirable, but rather he is condemning a man desiring to seduce/entice a woman into sex outside of marriage. This would apply both to premarital sex and adultery.

Here is a great video to help show you exactly what covetousness is.

So basically, it seems Matthew 5:27-28 isn't just about some guy who is simply fantasizing about a woman, while not having any intent to ever actually seduce her/commit adultery with her. The reason adultery is already a sin in his heart in this passage, is because he's already on the path to adultery; he is coveting her, planning/intending to actually have sex with her. Think David & Bathsheba:

When did David first sin in the Bathsheba story? Was it when he first merely fantasized about her? Or was it when he allowed the fantasies to get out of control and progress to the point that he was actually planning on getting her husband killed, so that he could commit the act of adultery with her? There are three steps to this, not two: 1. The fantasizing 2. The intent/planning to take/possess (coveting) 3. The act of following through with it and seducing her.

#3 is obviously actual adultery. So which one is “committing adultery in his heart”? I would argue that it is clearly #2. #1 was okay, but #2 was where he first ran into trouble with actual sin. Of course you could argue that #2 would have been less likely to happen if he hadn't even done #1. And I suppose that's a possibility, but there are plenty of people out there who engage in #1 on a daily basis and never let it progress to #2. What is a problem for one person, isn't always a problem for another.

So in the Matthew passage, this isn't just some guy having a fantasy; rather, this is a guy who is thinking “My neighbor's wife is hot, and he'll be out of town next week. I must have her; I'm going to seduce her.” Whether or not he goes through with it or succeeds, he has still committed adultery in his heart by starting to set that plan to commit the sin, into motion. But looking at her and having sexual thoughts pop in his head, or even consciously imagining acts with her? It's just not the same thing. Same deal goes for masturbation and fantasy at home; sitting at home imagining sexual acts with a person is nowhere near the level of actually thinking “Ok, I need to go out and actually have premarital/extramarital sex.” (In fact, there are plenty of people who credit fantasy/masturbation with helping prevent them from going out and actually committing fornication/adultery!)

Mainstream Christianity sees Matthew 5:27-28 and rightly hones in on the heart-sin of “committing adultery in one's heart.” But the problem I think is that they mistakenly think the heart-sin is simply “fantasizing,” just because that's what goes through their mind when their modern ears hear the word “lust.” But that just doesn't seem to be the biblical meaning of what Jesus was actually talking about.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think they're right to hone in on the fact that there is a heart-sin, but they're just wrong about what it is: The heart-sin is that the hypothetical guy in this passage is already intending/planning to seduce the woman - not that he is simply having a fantasy about her. The sin of adultery is already in his heart before he even carries out the act. The intent/planning to physically sin, is the heart-sin. The point Jesus was making was that a sin like adultery doesn't just happen spontaneously; you actually plan and intend to do it, in your heart beforehand. And doing so, is wrong. But simply imagining/thinking about an attractive woman, doesn't necessarily lead to you standing at her door to have extramarital sex with her. Lol.

But here's another example: Me thinking about how a cheeseburger would taste really good right now, doesn't mean I'm actually going to even plan to go get one right now—let alone actually go. It just means I'm thinking a cheeseburger would taste good... We can have desires for enjoyable things in life, but we must have self-control and not let the desires progress to the point of planning to/intending to commit the actual sin. (Obviously eating a cheeseburger isn’t a sin, but I hope you get my point.)

Believe me, I'm as conservative of a Christian as they come (I believe the Bible is 100% the Word of God) and used to think all this stuff was sin too... but I've come to the conclusion that Christian culture has artificially made something into a sin, that actually isn't one. Following the Bible is what we are called to do, but there's a problem when the church misinterprets/mistranslates words and then creates false doctrines that lead to Christians feeling guilty and suffering and thinking they can't live up to an ideal that even God never expected us to live up to… And by the way, the Bible even warns against this! Groups of believers in the early church were already starting to twist things to make life even harder on believers - and they were chastised for doing so!

It's all a shame, because if I'm right (I increasingly think I am), then that means many Christians are sadly battling something that isn't even a sin. I went years thinking it was a sin, just bc that is what was taught at church/at my Christian school and because of the common modern understanding of the word “lust”... but when you dig deeper into the biblical meaning of words, it's a whole other story.

In conclusion, this (unfortunately mainstream) idea of repressing sexual fantasies is not biblical, and just leads to plenty of young Christians (especially men) needlessly suffering. Your sex drive is how God designed you; it is not a defect or something that only came about because of the Fall & sin. You were made to have sexual thoughts and fantasies, to help drive you to marriage. Men were made to have a sexual hunger for women and vice versa.

Tl;dr The Bible is not saying that it's a sin to fantasize about a woman; it's saying that it's a sin to think about a woman (particularly a married woman) with the intent to/having a plan to actually seduce her and have extramarital sex with her. That's the reason for the whole “already committed adultery in his heart” thing; the guy is already planning to commit the sin. This isn't just some guy who's thinking “Wow, she's hot; it's fun to imagine what she'd be like in bed”; no, this is a guy who is thinking “My neighbor's wife is hot and he'll be out of town next week. I must have her; I'm going to try and seduce her.”

Here are some links which go much more in-depth, and undoubtedly do a better job of explaining it than me:

Why "Lusting" in Matthew 5:27-28 Doesn't Make All Men Adulterers - Berean Patriot

"Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust": Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1 | Jason Staples

Sexual Arousal And Fantasy Are Not Sin

Bible Topic Study: Matthew 5:28 Lust and Adultery

Do Not Covet: Is It a Feeling or an Action? - TheTorah.com

Lust, covetousness, desire, want, it's all pretty much the same thing according to the true Bible and original, or very original, "language going all the way back to the beginning", etc... and it's for or of anything, etc... and ""anything at all" "that way", etc... is a "sin", etc... most especially when it is entirely selfish, or is for only self-serving means, or reasons or purposes or desires or motivations, etc...

And when you quote/unquote "lust" after a woman, etc, or a woman after a man, etc, when you very first do, etc, it is, at first, entirely selfish and self-serving, and selfish and self-serving only, etc, and is therefore "sin", etc...

It should not be the first thought in your head towards anyone, etc, cause if it is, it is a "sin", etc...

Sin has already been conceived, it just has not been acted on yet, etc...

But it is all "sin", etc... Was more of Jesus point, etc...

God Bless!

Neogaia777 · Mar 14, 2021

@Billy93

Anything that you think will not be at all done and/or going on in heaven, etc, is a "sin", etc...

Getting/going all the way down into our thoughts, and what we think, etc...

Are all your sexual thoughts that you are having about another "holy" and/or 100% "pure", etc, cause if they are not in any way, then they are sin, etc...

I just think that you want to not at all feel condemned in any kind of way any more just for having them, etc, so your trying to change the definitions of what is or is not a "sin", etc...

Well, I'm very sorry for your "discomfort", etc, but if you truly want to feel 100% completely comfortable, and no longer ever more at all ever condemned at all, etc, "ever", etc, "this side of life", etc, in this "meantime", etc, then maybe you should just stop being a Christian then, or calling yourself a Christian at all maybe then...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

aiki said:
And, again:

Philippians 4:8
8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

There are very few things that meet all of the requirements of this verse. inappropriate contentography isn't one of them, obviously. Nor are sexual fantasies about "hot women" you've seen. What is honorable about using a woman to gratify selfish, sexual impulses? How does it honor her to abuse her in your imagination by using her as a tool, essentially, to stimulate yourself sexually? How does it honor God to do so? What is lovely about reducing a woman to a sexual object in your mind?

I don’t even know where to begin with this. This “objectify” talk which modern Christians engage in isn’t even biblical, and sounds more like feminism tbh.

Why does the Church have such a negative view of male sexuality?

aiki said:
Where is the loveliness of the holy Saviour - whose disciple and ambassador you are called to be - in your carnal imaginings about women? What is pure or right about employing your imagination to such selfish, impure imaginings? What is pure about making a woman a thing to use as a sex object? And so on.

And also:

1 Corinthians 10:31
31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

You are so hung up on this “selfish” thing when it comes to sexual desire, but don’t seem to think about the fact that “eating” or “drinking” (or the “whatever you do”) also brings pleasure to the person partaking - and guess what, we are to give glory to God for it.

aiki said:
"All" is a very encompassing word. It certainly would include your imagination. How does sexual fantasizing about woman glorify God, exactly? This is the God, mind you, who in His word has repeatedly told us to be spiritually-minded, not carnally-minded (which is to have a mind oriented upon satisfying fleshly impulses). In fact, God warns us again and again in Scripture that the flesh is fundamentally contrary to things spiritual.

Because as the verse above says, we are to glorify God in all that we do, whether it be eat, drink, etc. God invented sexual desire and the male imagination; we glorify God by enjoying how He made us. Sexual fantasies are no more a result of the Fall than desiring good food or drink is a result of the Fall.

aiki said:
Galatians 5:17
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

Galatians 6:7-8
7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Romans 8:5-8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

So, how, exactly, do you avoid being fleshly-minded, setting your mind on the things of the Spirit, while you selfishly imagine sexual interactions with women? How do you propose to escape the corruption of sowing to the flesh in your fantasies about fornication?

First, why is it “selfish” for me to imagine sexual interactions with women, but it’s not selfish for me to think of music I like, or food I like, or anything else? I spend a LOT more time listening to music on a daily/weekly basis, than I do thinking about sexual things. I’d wager you do too: Are you selfish for it?

And fantasies about fornication? A relational context isn’t even needed in order to fantasize… I’m not sitting there thinking “I’m fantasizing about having sex outside of marriage”; if I did, that would be sinful. (Though sometimes I do imagine I’m married.) If the fantasy was me imagining myself seducing this person and getting them to have sex with me outside of marriage, then that would be wrong. But if it’s just me imagining a beautiful woman God created, that is not sinful.

aiki said:
And:

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

How do your selfish, carnal sexual imaginings about woman avoid being immoral, impure, and sensual - the first three things in this list of "deeds of the flesh" - that Paul warns characterize those who will NOT inherit the kingdom of God?

Well, firstly the Bible doesn’t say they are immoral or impure, and regarding “sensual”: the Greek word is aselgeia, which in its original sense at the time referred to partaking in uncontrolled indulgence of physical pleasure. Also, contrary to the assumption one makes by reading “sensual” in our modern Bibles, aselgeia didn’t just refer to sexuality, but also gluttony, drunkenness, etc. So this is referring to people who live “the party life,” engage in “hook-up culture,” etc.

aiki said:
1 Corinthians 9:24-27
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Why would Paul need to take such harsh measures in discipline of his body? Why did he exercise self-control as though he were an elite athlete preparing for competition? Why did he work to make his body his slave? Because he knew that if he gave his flesh an inch it would take a mile; because he knew that in his flesh dwelled no good thing (Romans 7:18); because he knew corruption was the harvest of sowing to his flesh; because he was so crazy about God, so strongly desiring deep, rich, spiritual fellowship with God that he would do nothing to purposefully jeopardize or compete with what he had with his holy Maker. Christ was his life (Philippians 1:21; Colossians 3:4) and the Great Prize of the "race" he ran as a disciple of Jesus (Philippians 3:14; Philippians 3:8).

How does your sexual fantasizing follow Paul's example, forsaking the impulses of his flesh, strictly controlling the desires of his flesh, in order to achieve the spiritual prize of fellowship with God?

Obviously because if I didn’t control the desires of my flesh, I would be going out committing the sexual sins the Bible mentions, just as the rest of the world does…

aiki said:
Chapter and verse, please. Did God give Adam multiple wives? Why not, do you think, if He was so gung-ho about polygamy, as you suggest?

Huh, really not sure why you are wanting to get into a polygamy argument. So because God didn’t give Adam multiple wives, that means he was against polygamy?

Jacob: 2 wives, 2 concubines

David: 8 wives, many concubines

Solomon: 700 wives, 300 concubines

Etc.

In Genesis 30:18, God rewarded Leah with another child because she gave her husband another wife.

In Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, and Deuteronomy 25:5-7, God explicitly allowed polygamy and set the rules for it.

In 2 Samuel 12:8, after David sinned and took Bathsheba, God told David (through the Prophet Nathan) that He had given David the wives of his master, and would have given him more wives.

In Ezekiel 23:1-5, God pictured himself as the polygamist husband of Judah and Israel.

Etc.

aiki said:
Sexual desire is perfectly natural, yes, and nothing to stress over, but allowing that natural desire ground in your imagination to create selfish, sexual fantasies is utterly contrary to the spiritually-minded life of a follower of Christ whose preoccupation is to be with the Saviour and the holy, self-sacrificing life to which he has called all of his disciples (Matthew 16:24-25)

I genuinely don’t get it: People like you will sit here and flip out that it’s a sin if someone imagines sex for a few minutes, but if someone imagines/desires virtually anything else they’d like, it’s no big deal…? Huh? It truly makes no sense. I mean, by your logic, Christ’s disciples (let alone Christ himself) never deliberately prepared a specific meal to eat that they would enjoy - because after all, that would be selfish, right? Come on.

aiki said:
Where does the Bible ever say that selling illicit drugs to children is wrong? Where does the Bible explicitly forbid setting your neighbor's car on fire? Is it okay to poke the eyes out of stray cats because the Bible never says you shouldn't? If the Bible doesn't say exactly that one ought not to do a particular thing, then, according to your logic, it is perfectly all right to do! Surely, you see that's ridiculous!

But sexual sin is nothing new under the sun. Sexual fantasizing has been around since the dawn of man, and the Bible does not condemn it. Neither does it condemn masturbation. In fact, Song of Solomon is full of fantasizing - and the couple aren’t even married till the end of the book! (And it appears to even describe the woman masturbating while fantasizing, earlier in the book!)

aiki said:
This is abhorrent coming from someone claiming to be a follower of Christ.

Whatever you say.

aiki said:
Uh huh.

Well it’s the truth, so I’m not sure why you responded in that way…? You do realize that plenty of people have given up inappropriate content because of the effects it supposedly has on the brain, right?

aiki said:
??? This is called Strawman arguing. Look it up. No one has said you "must line up and agree with every single thing like a mindless zombie." But in this matter you are utterly wrong.

How so? Scripture itself confirms that Christ was talking about the 10th commandment!

aiki said:
You've found folks who are of a mind with yourself. This isn't honest research; it's just bias confirmation.

Did you miss the part where I said that for all of my life leading up to finding those articles, I believed that the Bible said it was wrong too?

aiki said:
Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB)
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 lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

To covet a thing is not merely to desire to possess it. At bottom, coveting a thing is an expression of selfishness, the very opposite of the attitude of self-sacrifice to which Christ has called his followers.

Christ himself “lusted” for the Passover meal. Do you really think Christ never enjoyed eating food, hearing music, anything? Was he “selfish” for doing so? Give me a break. What you are preaching is asceticism. Frankly at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if you called it “selfish” for a husband to have desire to receive pleasure from his wife. And yes, coveting is indeed a strong desire to possess something that does not belong to someone.

aiki said:
Matthew 16:24-25 (NASB)
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
25 "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

What are you talking about? We do deny ourselves! We deny ourselves from committing actual, stated sins: such as fornication, adultery, inappropriate behavior with animals, etc. The world engages in these sins; we are directed not to. The Bible does not say that simple sexual fantasy is a sin! It would only be a sin if it progressed to the level of covetousness.

aiki said:
No matter how you try to spin it, the selfishness at the heart of sexual fantasizing is clearly against the crucified, spiritually-minded life of a disciple of Christ.

Again, asceticism. You would act like we are not supposed to find any enjoyment while on this Earth, whatsoever. Sexual fantasizing is no more selfish than me desiring a meal at my favorite restaurant.

Jamdoc · Mar 14, 2021

Kettriken said:
Oh, believe me, I'm familiar with the scripture on this
I just didn't think it was particularly appropriate to to the discussion. In fact, I think its particularly inappropriate to the discussion, but I appreciate your balancing it out

Well the problem is, he's focused on the physical drive. The physical drive is natural, but, it has to be put into context. That is a problem with inappropriate contentography and masturbation is that it devalues sex from its true intended meaning from God, into just satiating a physical drive. Connected with that, and ESPECIALLY when inappropriate contentography is involved, it also devalues the other person involved, seen as just an object for gratification.
What OP (and myself for that matter, and any single man, especially any single man that struggles with sexual sin and sexual drive) really truly desires, and often does not know it, is the relationship with a woman that God intended, and to love her and respect her, marriage. Being unmarried, especially in this sexually driven modern world, does not just make it so a man doesn't have a natural sex drive. But without the proper way to express it, as an act of mutual love in marriage.. man seeks other means to satiate the physical drive, and they're pretty much all negative.
Unfortunately, the devil has provided ample means of doing that, in a way that devalues people, and makes people think all they want is the physical sex act, decoupling it from the relationship that actually gives it meaning. It leads to hookup culture, one night stands, and it's not fulfilling for anyone participating in that.

So I can empathize. When you're an unmarried man (maybe unmarried women too but I can't speak for those I only have experience as an unmarried man), there's no prayer that just takes away that physical drive, and if you're just an undesirable man, you have to deal with that drive consuming your brain over time, and deal with cycles of sin and regret trying to alleviate a drive you have no legal options to deal with.
So you seek to justify the sins you use to alleviate that drive.
It doesn't work. You know it's still sin.
This world can also make it more difficult, because all culture is saturated with sex, and most marriages end in divorce, and people are marrying later in life, and a lot of people are just choosing to stay single and fornicate.

So I think OP is dealing with trying to justify what he feels is his only option to satiate a physical drive, and one of the harms that comes out of that sin is that it displaces the good desire (marriage/love/relationship) and focuses on the selfish physical drive (sex), and it colors the way he views women, to his detriment. I should say our detriment, I can empathize though I try to keep my mind understanding what God intended with it all, rather than on myself.

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

Neogaia777 said:
@Billy93

Anything that you think will not be at all done and/or going on in heaven, etc, is a "sin", etc...

Getting/going all the way down into our thoughts, and what we think, etc...

Are all your sexual thoughts that you are having about another "holy" and/or 100% "pure", etc, cause if they are not in any way, then they are sin, etc…

Huh? It’s biblically false that anything that will not be going on in heaven is a sin. There’s no marriage in heaven… Is marriage a sin?

Neogaia777 said:
I just think that you want to not at all feel condemned in any kind of way any more just for having them, etc, so your trying to change the definitions of what is or is not a "sin", etc…

Uh, no, that’s actually not it at all. I spent my entire life raised to believe Matthew 5 referred to “fantasizing.” It wasn’t even until I came across one of the articles I linked, that I had ever heard the argument that it is misinterpreted. And then I found more and more articles that claimed the same thing, and the arguments all seemed valid and sensible (and Scripture-based!).

Neogaia777 said:
Well, I'm very sorry for your "discomfort", etc, but if you truly want to feel 100% completely comfortable, and no longer ever more at all ever condemned at all, etc, "ever", etc, "this side of life", etc, in this "meantime", etc, then maybe you should just stop being a Christian then, or calling yourself a Christian at all maybe then...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

I’m very hurt that you would say this. Stop being a Christian? Why would you say such a thing? You want me to go to hell? I’ve been making great strides in my walk with God over the past 8 months; why would you say such a thing?

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

Neogaia777 said:
Lust, covetousness, desire, want, it's all pretty much the same thing according to the true Bible and original, or very original, "language going all the way back to the beginning", etc... and it's for or of anything, etc... and ""anything at all" "that way", etc... is a "sin", etc... most especially when it is entirely selfish, or is for only self-serving means, or reasons or purposes or desires or motivations, etc...

And when you quote/unquote "lust" after a woman, etc, or a woman after a man, etc, when you very first do, etc, it is, at first, entirely selfish and self-serving, and selfish and self-serving only, etc, and is therefore "sin", etc...

It should not be the first thought in your head towards anyone, etc, cause if it is, it is a "sin", etc...

Sin has already been conceived, it just has not been acted on yet, etc...

But it is all "sin", etc... Was more of Jesus point, etc...

God Bless!

What is “the true Bible”? Honestly, I’m not sure what you’re getting at in much of your comment, just a lot of “etc."

Jamdoc · Mar 14, 2021

Neogaia777 said:
@Billy93

Anything that you think will not be at all done and/or going on in heaven, etc, is a "sin", etc...

Not entirely true. There are some things that will not be in heaven that are in this world that are not sins.
Marriage for one is taught by Paul is not a sin, it won't exist in Heaven.

and I don't think there's any prohibition on surfing, stargazing, or eating hamburgers but none of those things will be in heaven or the New Earth.

in fact on the Marriage and burgers.. Paul said that anyone forbidding those things is following doctrines of demons according to 1 Timothy 4.
(not saying you are just.. you kinda overstepped on the statement about anything not taking place in heaven is sin)

DamianWarS · Mar 14, 2021

Billy93 said:
I understand your point, but anger is quite different from desire. There are kinds of desire that are totally acceptable in the Bible. Also, perhaps I described it badly: It’s not necessarily an explicit act of “plotting” that I think classifies as covetousness. For instance, I think obsessively thinking “Man, I would really love to seduce my friend’s wife when he’s out of town next week” is just as much of a sin as “He’ll be gone on x particular day; I’ll go over at y time.” One is obviously more vague than the other, but the intent is still clearly present. And back to the Matthew passage, again: Adultery is different because the “thought sin” that leads to this one has already been laid out in the law before (and it’s called the 10th commandment). And the reason we know it’s referring to covetousness and not something lesser, is because of what Paul says in Romans: that lust = covetousness.

You are still describing what I would consider plotting or at least the desire for an opportunity. I go back to the relationship of murder/anger to help define the relationship of adultery/lust. Anger is not the desire for an opportunity to kill. You can be angry with someone and have no desire to kill them or an opportunity to kill them. Such is the same with lust and adultery. It is not about the desire for the opportunity it is about where you are taking your thoughts for that person. Imo however you define one you should define the other to the same degree. Jesus is not trying to justify actions or thoughts he is fundamentally saying sin starts in the heart not in the deed. You seem to miss this point.

Billy93 said:
Yes. If fantasizing is not wrong, why would I see a problem with that?

Loving your neighbour as yourself is not about black and white sin. It is about going the extra mile to serve and I would consider fantasizing sexual thoughts about them or members of their household in violation of loving your neighbour as yourself. I certainly won't feel comfortable knowing people I know are fantazing about my wife or children so why would I think they would be comfortable with me doing that to their family? If you're unclear why this is a problem then ask for permission to sexually fantasize about an individual, or their wife and see the response you get.

What is broken in our society is how we view who is an adult and when you're ready to marry. Our modern society demands an individual to not only complete school but have a career and be settled before it is responsible to consider marriage. Well this brings and individual in there late 20s or even 30s so how can we expect healthy sexuality with such expections? These definitions also follow the church but the church rejects co-habitation or sex before marriage models so they want the worse of both. This is a modern phenomenon that Christians should abondoned if we wish to preserve and keep our values of marriage

Mainstream Christianity is wrong about Matthew 5:27-28 (the famous “lust” passage)

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Watching and Praying Always

Old Soul

Old Soul

Active Member

Watching and Praying Always

Active Member

Active Member

Watching and Praying Always

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Similar threads