How do you define "Lust"?

[dmp]

Spawned by convo. in another thread - I'm curious as to the predominant definition of Lust folk are using.

To me, Lust takes time. To me lust is an intense consuming (to some extent) desire for something one cannot have or does not have. The difference between desire and lust is desire motivates folk to action. Lust motivates people to despair.

I believe folk confuse "sexual arousal" with "Lust" because it's easy to do. One thinks a man or woman must LUST after another to commit adultery. I think it can be as simple as being aroused and having the chance.

That said, their arousal would not be the sin - their desire for adultery would be the sin.*

If sexual arousal did equate to Lust, married folk may have to repent each and every time they were intimate. When I walk by an glanced at my wife's cut butt, I'd have to repent! When she walked by and...well...I have nothing very nice to look at...but if she DID see something cute, and got her hankerin' for play-time, she'd have to repent too!

See the fallacy of equating the terms, "Lust" and "Arousal"?

Along those lines,even seeing an attractive person, and pointing them out as attractive (either verbally to a companion, or just thinking 'gosh! That girl is HOT! or BEAUTIFUL!") is simply commenting on what you see. It's not lust. It's not even arousal (although those things can stem from 'noticing', they are not one-and-the-same).


When we LUST after something...we burn for it. We plot and desire that thing more than we desire Truth and Love and Holiness.


What're your thoughts? Have Christians become SO sex-terified we call everything associated with the act "SINFUL" or "LUSTFUL"? Have we no freedom in Christ to admit the beauty of his creations? Can we be REALLY HOT for our spouse without fear of condemnation?

*Mathew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who so much as looks at a woman with evil desire for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

 

[Assisi]

I agree with you, but most Christians seem to equate lust with desire and think lust is a good thing within marriage and a bad thing outside of marriage.

On the other hand, I think desire is good, and lust is bad. If you lust after someone (or something) then you want to possess that person and use him/her to your own ends. If you desire someone it is within the confines of love and you will seek out the ultimate good for that person, rather than using them.

I think it is possible to lust after your spouse, which I don't think is a good thing. And I think it's possible to desire someone outside of marriage (like your fiance).

 

[mkgal1]

I agree with you, but most Christians seem to equate lust with desire and think lust is a good thing within marriage and a bad thing outside of marriage.

On the other hand, I think desire is good, and lust is bad. If you lust after someone (or something) then you want to possess that person and use him/her to your own ends. If you desire someone it is within the confines of love and you will seek out the ultimate good for that person, rather than using them.

I think it is possible to lust after your spouse, which I don't think is a good thing. And I think it's possible to desire someone outside of marriage (like your fiance).

I completely agree with Assisi's explanation of lust and that it is even possible WITHIN the marriage, as she said...with the SPOUSE, as not being within the confines of love. Very well put..I don't see anywhere in the Bible where "lust" is used in a positive way (I certainly could be wrong though). I see it used as coveting, a strong desire, which I interpret as selfish desires, doing ANYTHING to satisfy self...not giving a gift of our expression of love.

 

[hisbloodformysins]

Spawned by convo. in another thread - I'm curious as to the predominant definition of Lust folk are using.

To me, Lust takes time. To me lust is an intense consuming (to some extent) desire for something one cannot have or does not have. The difference between desire and lust is desire motivates folk to action. Lust motivates people to despair.

I believe folk confuse "sexual arousal" with "Lust" because it's easy to do. One thinks a man or woman must LUST after another to commit adultery. I think it can be as simple as being aroused and having the chance.

That said, their arousal would not be the sin - their desire for adultery would be the sin.*

If sexual arousal did equate to Lust, married folk may have to repent each and every time they were intimate. When I walk by an glanced at my wife's cut butt, I'd have to repent! When she walked by and...well...I have nothing very nice to look at...but if she DID see something cute, and got her hankerin' for play-time, she'd have to repent too!

See the fallacy of equating the terms, "Lust" and "Arousal"?

Along those lines,even seeing an attractive person, and pointing them out as attractive (either verbally to a companion, or just thinking 'gosh! That girl is HOT! or BEAUTIFUL!") is simply commenting on what you see. It's not lust. It's not even arousal (although those things can stem from 'noticing', they are not one-and-the-same).


When we LUST after something...we burn for it. We plot and desire that thing more than we desire Truth and Love and Holiness.


What're your thoughts? Have Christians become SO sex-terified we call everything associated with the act "SINFUL" or "LUSTFUL"? Have we no freedom in Christ to admit the beauty of his creations? Can we be REALLY HOT for our spouse without fear of condemnation?

*Mathew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who so much as looks at a woman with evil desire for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Well at first i was going to say it's when you are turned on... but after reading this post more I think I'd have to agree with you. Though I must say that if one did lust for their spouse, it wouldn't be considered sin. It's sin when you lust for someone else's spouse, or someone who is not your spouse... or for something that someone else have that is not yours (coveting?) It is a painful emotion, I agree. It's like being consumed with desire. I think if one lusted after their spouse, that could be healthy.... but an OBSESSION with something sucks! I have OCD... so I know first hand that obessiving over something is no fun!

Those are my thoughts anyways!

HB

 

[dmp]

Thank you ladies for your thoughts.

Is it possible to lust after righteousness?

 

[mkgal1]

I think we can hunger and thirst after righteousness....crave righteousness, but when I see *lust* used in the Bible, it is used in a negative. It is defined as desiring something forbidden, so I don't see how that fits.
Good, thought provoking question though.
I believe semantics are very important to God, or else He wouldn't have inspired every word in Scripture.

 

[Johnnz]

.I don't see anywhere in the Bible where "lust" is used in a positive way (I certainly could be wrong though).

When Jesus told his disciples he 'earnestly desired ' to eat the passover meal with them he used the same Greek word as used in Matthew. Strong desire, sexual or otherwise is not lust. Wrongful lust requires both desire and intent, whether opportunity arises of not, to commit an actual wrong.

John
NZ

 

[Mr.Cheese]

.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I agree with you, but most Christians seem to equate lust with desire and think lust is a good thing within marriage and a bad thing outside of marriage.

On the other hand, I think desire is good, and lust is bad. If you lust after someone (or something) then you want to possess that person and use him/her to your own ends. If you desire someone it is within the confines of love and you will seek out the ultimate good for that person, rather than using them.

I think it is possible to lust after your spouse, which I don't think is a good thing. And I think it's possible to desire someone outside of marriage (like your fiance).

I completely agree.

I completely agree with Assisi's explanation of lust and that it is even possible WITHIN the marriage, as she said...with the SPOUSE, as not being within the confines of love. Very well put..I don't see anywhere in the Bible where "lust" is used in a positive way (I certainly could be wrong though). I see it used as coveting, a strong desire, which I interpret as selfish desires, doing ANYTHING to satisfy self...not giving a gift of our expression of love.

I completely agree.

Well at first i was going to say it's when you are turned on... but after reading this post more I think I'd have to agree with you. Though I must say that if one did lust for their spouse, it wouldn't be considered sin. It's sin when you lust for someone else's spouse, or someone who is not your spouse... or for something that someone else have that is not yours (coveting?) It is a painful emotion, I agree. It's like being consumed with desire. I think if one lusted after their spouse, that could be healthy.... but an OBSESSION with something sucks! I have OCD... so I know first hand that obessiving over something is no fun!

Those are my thoughts anyways!

HB

I disagree with the idea that one cannot lust after their spouse.

 

[dmp]

I disagree with the idea that one cannot lust after their spouse.

Can you give an example of what would be considered "lusting" for one's spouse?

 

[mkgal1]

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I am going to give an example anyway.
I define *lusting* after one's spouse as when a husband OR wife is looking for self-gratification only. They are not interested in making a loving connection, only fullfilling their own needs. This can be done by ignoring daily needs, speaking in anger, and then EXPECTING sex. This is wrong, and not what God intended for marital love/sex.
That's my opinion....

 

[dmp]

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I am going to give an example anyway.
I define *lusting* after one's spouse as when a husband OR wife is looking for self-gratification only. They are not interested in making a loving connection, only fullfilling their own needs. This can be done by ignoring daily needs, speaking in anger, and then EXPECTING sex. This is wrong, and not what God intended for marital love/sex.
That's my opinion....

Would you say it's the duty of the neglected spouse to continue having sex with their spouse? Regardless of how they were being 'treated'?

Thanks for sharing your definition of 'lusting after one's spouse'.

 

[mkgal1]

If that has become a norm, no, I don't feel it's the *duty* of the neglected spouse to continue having sex with their spouse in this way. I DO believe it is the neglected spouses duty to call attention to this problem & explain how damaging it is to their marriage so the couple can work TOGETHER in repairing things. This all should be done in a loving way....not in a condemning judgmental way.

 

[dmp]

If that has become a norm, no, I don't feel it's the *duty* of the neglected spouse to continue having sex with their spouse in this way.

Do you feel that position is at odds with this scripture?

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

 

[heart of peace]

On the thought of it being possible to lust after righteousness - well I have encountered people who are so wrapped up in the Bible that they have no idea how to relate to others, have mistaken themselves to be the moral judge of others and who beat Biblical concepts into whoever they come across. I suppose Satan lusted after righteousness and he was cast down from heaven due to the pride that probably started out as a lust of some sort.

Lusting after a spouse is not a good thing on a deeper spiritual level as that would mean one's spouse becomes more important than God Himself.

However, a surface level lust that may come about when one's spouse is all done up, smelling good and appealing to the senses is definitely a good thing in the marital relationship.

Oh, and I agree with the way the OP defined lust. How can we be faulted for a reflexive action like sexual arousal? That is why women are held accountable in regards to their dress (umm...did I just open a can of worms? ).

 

[dmp]

Oh, and I agree with the way the OP defined lust. How can we be faulted for a reflexive action like sexual arousal? That is why women are held accountable in regards to their dress (umm...did I just open a can of worms? ).

lol there you go again, worm-can opener!

I don't hold women accountable for how they dress. Not much, anyway. For me, I hold the viewer accountable. That is to say a woman can NEVER tell what's going to get a man going. Some guys may like women in burlap sacks. Know what I mean?

 

[Romanseight2005]

lol there you go again, worm-can opener!

I don't hold women accountable for how they dress. Not much, anyway. For me, I hold the viewer accountable. That is to say a woman can NEVER tell what's going to get a man going. Some guys may like women in burlap sacks. Know what I mean?

Both are responsible for their part. A woman is responsible to dress modestly because we are told to do so in scripture. However, regardless of how a woman dresses, it is the man's responsibility to react to what he sees in a godly manner. She should not set out to entice, and this is sin if she does, but this really is a personal thing between her and God. Also, if she knows that if she dresses a certain way, she gets a lot of looks toward certain body parts, them she can't play innocent. The fact is that we can all be temptations of different sorts to eachother, men women, all of us. So, it is up to us to attempt not to be.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Would you say it's the duty of the neglected spouse to continue having sex with their spouse? Regardless of how they were being 'treated'?

Thanks for sharing your definition of 'lusting after one's spouse'.

Would you want someone to have sex with you if you knew their heart wasn't in it?

I think there would be deeper issues in this case than whether or not they are having sex. Like this one,
1 Peter 3:7

7 You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be
NASB

If you think a man can simply pull one scripture out and hold it over a wife's head, you are mistaken. This may actually be a time for separating for a time of prayer, and reconciling, with understanding towards one another.

 

[dmp]

Both are responsible for their part. A woman is responsible to dress modestly because we are told to do so in scripture.

That doesn't mean she shouldn't show skin. It mean she shouldn't let her adornments define her.

However, regardless of how a woman dresses, it is the man's responsibility to react to what he sees in a godly manner. She should not set out to entice, and this is sin if she does, but this really is a personal thing between her and God. Also, if she knows that if she dresses a certain way, she gets a lot of looks toward certain body parts, them she can't play innocent. The fact is that we can all be temptations of different sorts to eachother, men women, all of us. So, it is up to us to attempt not to be.

Here's the problem I see with that. It allows people with problems of lust and horniness to blame somebody other than themselves. Frankly, seeing a woman's breast no longer 'cause me to stumble' because of all the time I've spent in Europe. Breasts were everywhere. Therefore, a woman wearing a revealing dress or shirt doesn't phase me. It 'might' phase a more..hrm...conservative? guy. To me, it's old-hat, in a way. Therefore what simply looks nice, and plays to a woman's strengths in my mind may "Cause" (I use quotes because it really doesn't cause the guy) a guy to get all hot and bothered. It's unreasonable, in my mind, to dress in a way which could lead no single person to sin. That is to say, somebody will get turned on by ANYTHING. Make sense?

Would you want someone to have sex with you if you knew their heart wasn't in it?

That's beside the point. That's a personal question about my preference, not addressing our scripture-based 'duties'.

I think there would be deeper issues in this case than whether or not they are having sex. Like this one,
1 Peter 3:7

7 You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be
NASB

If you think a man can simply pull one scripture out and hold it over a wife's head, you are mistaken. This may actually be a time for separating for a time of prayer, and reconciling, with understanding towards one another.

Again, I think you're missing what I asked. What you're showing is a cause-and-effect between 'IF spouse A does this, I, spouse B will do that'. That's sort of a selfish type of Love, isn't it? It's curious to me why you went there - you know - here:

"Why should the man hold a scripture over his wife's head?". There are many many women I've met who use withholding sex as a tool to "Punish" their husbands. One could clearly ask, "Why should a WOMAN hold those scriptures over a man's head, in an effort to withhold her duty?"

 

[mkgal1]

That's beside the point. That's a personal question about my preference, not addressing our scripture-based 'duties'. I have a problem with using the word *duties* to describe what God meant as an expression of our love for our spouse. Christ spoke very harshly against the Pharisees's pious acts to gain God's approval.


Again, I think you're missing what I asked. What you're showing is a cause-and-effect between 'IF spouse A does this, I, spouse B will do that'. That's sort of a selfish type of Love, isn't it? It's curious to me why you went there - you know - here:

"Why should the man hold a scripture over his wife's head?". There are many many women I've met who use withholding sex as a tool to "Punish" their husbands. One could clearly ask, "Why should a WOMAN hold those scriptures over a man's head, in an effort to withhold her duty?"

I don't think using the above Scripture IS showing a cause and effect. I don't believe either spouse should *punish* the other...that doesn't solve anything. It's not selfish to want what is best for the marriage...true intimacy. What I said in my earlier post is, if the marriage is void of true intimacy, but one spouse is EXPECTING sex, the loving thing to do for the other spouse (I am not going to use husband/wife-because I believe it can go either way) is to gently bring up the issues for the couple to work on. God had a plan in mind when He created marriage. Mankind's sin nature gets in the way most of the time.