Is he committing adultery with his own wife?

[Avniel]

That's your opinion. I defined the way I'm using it.....and I am not alone on this........it's not my own made-up word. I'm not going to continue on in this. I've said my opinion (repeatedly)......you don't have to agree. From this post......it sounds as if you have made a presumption about *why* I'm using a specific word. FTR.....there's no agenda behind it........it's just a way to make things more clear (good desire/corrupt desire). It applies across the board. Same standard for everyone. Anything short of genuine love taints the marital union. When a marriage isn't up to its full potential.......BOTH spouses miss out (not just one---which is what it sounds like you're implying).


BTW.....that is an excellent example of what I was trying to say (Jesus being angered by His temple being used for corruption). God doesn't put parameters around things that are holy just to be mean........it's because they are valuable to Him.....worthy of guarding and protecting. He wants us to be able to enjoy His gifts to us in their fullness (which can only happen when sin doesn't destroy and ruin them).

Who suggested to you that's my agenda, BTW (that I chose "lust" because that's a "man's sin" and hurts the woman the most)? I was wondering why you were so adamant about *not* wanting to use the word "lust". Thanks for finally making sense of all that

Everyone (both spouses) lose(s) when we miss God's perfect will.....but, the good news is.......everyone (both spouses) win(s), when we *do* remain in His will.

I in no way am saying that you have an agenda I was just simply stating my belief in the reason you feel the word lust must be used to describe this situation. I wasn't speaking of an agenda more so a logic behind it. I would even agree that when a spouse sins and treats a spouse unloving both spouses suffer. The bible teaches us we reap what we sow, there are consequences for sin and also sin affects everyone in the situation negatively. I in no way am willing or will accept anything other then mutual pain from even one spouse removing themselves from God's will. To go a little deeper when two become one the sins of either spouse affect both of them.

I do agree with you sin can turn something special and a blessing into something one may see worth destroying. He wants the family unit to be protected and the only way to protect the family unit in my eyes are by Prayer, love and wisdom. Sex with out a spiritual intimacy is animalistic only used to produce off spring and self gratification.

I never said you used lust because its a man sin. What I am saying is that you recognized lust as being a stronger word or a stronger sin then just simply being unloving.


Yes everyone does lose when two spouses or one spouse is acting in an unloving manner. Even the children lose if they are children present.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on anything other then it's not lust. If a poster came here and said his wife killed their marriage I am not going to say his wife's sin is murder. Doesn't mean it is less sinful simply just murder isn't the right word.

 

[mkgal1]

That's why looking on a woman with lust is equal to committing adultery with her in a man's heart; the sexual desire isn't the lust, it's the desire to have something that isn't his.

Are there any qualifiers in that verse? Let's camp on this verse for a bit:

But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.~Matthew 5:28

Does it ever say this is addressed to married men? What if single........does this mean a man cannot be sexually attracted to a woman? That he can't find her alluring and beautiful (physically----because that's really *all* he has to go by at that moment)?

IMO......making a distinction between natural/healthy desire and corrupt self-gratifying desire.......that makes this verse much more clear. It takes away the shame of noticing an attractive women (because.....on it's own.....that's *not* objectifying her).

 

[mkgal1]

I in no way am saying that you have an agenda I was just simply stating my belief in the reason you feel the word lust must be used to describe this situation.

And that's making an assumption about my reasoning (which I had already explained that *I* hadn't come up with it----the Pope did....and Christopher West agrees). When I first heard West say it......it sort of unraveled the whole tangled mess. I had *no* idea it would be such a controversial remark I had made.

I wasn't speaking of an agenda more so a logic behind it. I would even agree that when a spouse sins and treats a spouse unloving both spouses suffer. The bible teaches us we reap what we sow, there are consequences for sin and also sin affects everyone in the situation negatively. I in no way am willing or will accept anything other then mutual pain from even one spouse removing themselves from God's will. To go a little deeper when two become one the sins of either spouse affect both of them.

I do agree with you sin can turn something special and a blessing into something one may see worth destroying. He wants the family unit to be protected and the only way to protect the family unit in my eyes are by Prayer, love and wisdom. Sex with out a spiritual intimacy is animalistic only used to produce off spring and self gratification.

I never said you used lust because its a man sin. What I am saying is that you recognized lust as being a stronger word or a stronger sin then just simply being unloving.


Yes everyone does lose when two spouses or one spouse is acting in an unloving manner. Even the children lose if they are children present.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on anything other then it's not lust. If a poster came here and said his wife killed their marriage I am not going to say his wife's sin is murder. Doesn't mean it is less sinful simply just murder isn't the right word.

That's what an agenda is......but, I'm not even worrying about any of that (what an agenda is).

It is interesting to hear you tell me what *I* recognized (when I hadn't said anything of the sort). Maybe *you* recognized it.....and that's why there's so much resistance, but honestly......the thought never crossed my mind (that "lust" is a stronger word than "unloving"). That is a good point, though.......because I wasn't speaking about imperfection (which is what comes to my mind when I hear "unloving". That's a pretty vague term). "Lust" *is* a stronger attitude and should have a "strong" word to describe it. I'm glad you pointed that out.

 

[Avniel]

And that's making an assumption about my reasoning (which I had already explained that *I* hadn't come up with it----the Pope did....and Christopher West agrees). When I first heard West say it......it sort of unraveled the whole tangled mess. I had *no* idea it would be such a controversial remark I had made.




That's what an agenda is......but, I'm not even worrying about any of that. It is interesting to hear you tell me what *I* recognized (when I hadn't said anything of the sort).

AN agenda is not your logic using the word lust an agenda is what you plan to gain by having people accept it as the right term.

An example:

I play basketball because my entire family plays basketball that's how I think you know thats my agenda.

I play basketball and my agenda is to use basketball to make my family proud by doing something most of them do.

Merriam Webster defines agenda as "a list or outline of things to be considered or done <agendas of faculty meetings>" or ": an underlying often ideological plan or program <a political agenda>"

Agenda - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

As far as the bolded please elaborate.

 

[Created2Write]

Are there any qualifiers in that verse? Let's camp on this verse for a bit:

Does it ever say this is addressed to married men? What if single........does this mean a man cannot be sexually attracted to a woman? That he can't find her alluring and beautiful (physically----because that's really *all* he has to go by at that moment)?

IMO......making a distinction between natural/healthy desire and corrupt self-gratifying desire.......that makes this verse much more clear. It takes away the shame of noticing an attractive women (because.....on it's own.....that's *not* objectifying her).

Of course it's not objectifying. We're all given natural sexual desires. That's why I said that sexual desire isn't necessarily lust. It can become lust, if left on its own, and that's when the internal adultery takes place, imo.

 

[mkgal1]

Of course it's not objectifying. We're all given natural sexual desires. That's why I said that sexual desire isn't necessarily lust. It can become lust, if left on its own, and that's when the internal adultery takes place, imo.

You're using vague terms. When you say, "if left on it's own"......at what point....or what's the defining marker (in your opinion) that takes it from natural desire to lust? Where's that line?

 

[McScribe]

I would make Created's statement a bit more precise. To use coveting as an example: if you admire someone's car, then you really like it, you might passionately want one just like it and do your best to get one. On the other hand if you covet, then you think in some way that you are entitled to have such a car.

If you look at Cain and Abel: both of them crave God's blessing. But Abel is prepared to be schooled in how to achieve that. Cain simply feels he deserves it, and this is what feeds his jealous murderous rage at Abel.

However a married couple already have one another. So there's no coveting, therefore no lust.

What there might be is inconsiderate behaviour. Spouses are supposed to loving towards one another as the many scriptures on this say. It is very easy to become selfish, have misunderstandings, etc. The way we are supposed to deal with this kind of thing between two people who are supposed to love another is dealt with in many ways in the Bible.

 

[Created2Write]

I would make Created's statement a bit more precise. To use coveting as an example: if you admire someone's car, then you really like it, you might passionately want one just like it and do your best to get one. On the other hand if you covet, then you think in some way that you are entitled to have such a car.

If you look at Cain and Abel: both of them crave God's blessing. But Abel is prepared to be schooled in how to achieve that. Cain simply feels he deserves it, and this is what feeds his jealous murderous rage at Abel.

However a married couple already have one another. So there's no coveting, therefore no lust.

What there might be is inconsiderate behaviour. Spouses are supposed to loving towards one another as the many scriptures on this say. It is very easy to become selfish, have misunderstandings, etc. The way we are supposed to deal with this kind of thing between two people who are supposed to love another is dealt with in many ways in the Bible.

^ This.

 

[Created2Write]

You're using vague terms. When you say, "if left on it's own"......at what point....or what's the defining marker (in your opinion) that takes it from natural desire to lust? Where's that line?

I mean, if a man sees a beautiful woman(whether he's married or not) and he doesn't monitor his initial attraction, and allows his mind to wander, his sexual desire can lead to fantasies. An initial sexual thought can be uncontrollable, but intentionally rolling fantasies around in your head, embellishing them, isn't. That is when I believe there's lust.

But a man and woman who are married are free to fantasize about each other as much as they desire. There can be no lust there.

 

[Nerd Girl Supreme]

Blind post:

No, I don't believe it's possible to commit adultery with your own spouse. "Lust" is uncontrolled desire for something that doesn't belong to you. If something belongs to you, it's already yours, you don't "lust" after it. You can DESIRE your spouse sexually, and that's a good and healthy thing. The only caution I would give is that you don't put your desire above the relationship; eg make them feel guilty or get upset if they don't do what you want, when you want it, etc. THAT is wrong, IMHO.

 

[mkgal1]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7706721/

So &#8211; let&#8217;s be clear. Not lusting does not mean denying the pleasure of sex. It means having the proper orientation of that pleasure. It should be something that fosters the mutual love between husband and wife. It should not be something either spouse abuses as a means of their own personal gratification. I fear this is all too common within marriage these days &#8211; even among so-called good Christian marriages.

When we lust for somebody we objectify them as an instrument of our own, selfish pleasure. We use them. If we truly love somebody we will never use them like this. This goes against the very meaning of the sacrament of Marriage. So we should not be lusting for anyone, least of all our spouses!

That&#8217;s why it is not good enough to only say &#8220;don&#8217;t have sex outside of marriage.&#8221; We must give people the full picture of God&#8217;s plan for sex. It&#8217;s not a legalism that says &#8220;don&#8217;t do this&#8221; or you&#8217;ll mess things up. That misses the point. It&#8217;s a liberty that says if you want the fullness of life &#8211; &#8220;live this way.&#8221;~Lusting For Your Wife - Fallible Blogma

 

[Cjwinnit]

Is it possible if a man looks at his own wife that he is committing adultery with her in his own heart?

Absolutely not. You cannot commit adultery with your wife. And a woman cannot commit adultery with her husband.

In Exodus 20:17 there is a good explanation of lust. It is essentially coveting. Coveting means wanting something that belongs to someone else. So it is not possible if you see it that way to lust after your own wife. It is possible to be inconsiderate, but it is not possible to lust after or covet something that is yours. It would be like stealing your own car or breaking into your own house.

Perfect.

 

[BlindDidymus]

Haven't read all of this but from what I've read generally, I agree that it is a sin for a man to lust after his own wife.
The purpose of carnal relationships is for the bringing forth of children and if they are engaged in solely for the purposes of fulfilling one's own passionate desires (i.e. lusts) then they are bound to lead to suffering. (For example, perhaps one party may feel pressured into such acts though unwilling to say. This can cause grief in marriage.) As such, unless both people agree that they wish, with God's blessing, to bring a child into the world then they ought to abstain from carnal relations.
For this reason, in generations past many people only engaged in carnal relations in the dark of night and in some Christian cultures a woman would not so much as expose her chest to her own husband lest he lust after her. That said, these things are cultural and there are some cultures which permit almost no exposure of skin whilst others permit almost a complete exposure of skin even in ordinary daily activities.

 

[mkgal1]

More from Christopher West on the topic (to clarify a bit):

Purity is not prudishness. It does not reject the body. &#8220;Purity is the glory of the human body before God. It is God&#8217;s glory in the human body, through which masculinity and femininity are manifested&#8221; (TOB, March 18, 1981). Purity in its fullness will only be restored in heaven. Yet, as the Catechism teaches, &#8220;Even now [purity of heart] enables us to see according to God...; it lets us perceive the human body &#8211; ours and our neighbor&#8217;s &#8211; as a temple of the Holy Spirit, a manifestation of divine beauty&#8221; (CCC, n. 2519).

If you find that lust blinds you to the true beauty of the human body, take heart: Jesus came preaching sight for the blind. Like the blind man in the Gospel, we must all cry out to him, &#8220;Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me, I want to see!&#8221;

 

[CounselorForChrist]

Didn't read all 24 pages but this is a silly topic since you cannot commit adultery with your own spouse. Same goes for lusting over your spouse is a sin...its not. Or you wouldn't bother spending time alone in a bed, not even on the honeymoon.

 

[mkgal1]

It may make more sense if "adultery" is thought of as a lack of faithfulness (especially lacking faith in love----being separated from God's love or not acting in accordance to His love.....His holiness).

The theology of the body consists of a searching analysis of biblical texts that reveal the mystery of the body, sexuality, and marriage at three critical "levels" of human experience: as man experienced them "in the beginning" before sin (Original Man); as man experiences them in human history affected by sin, yet redeemed in Christ (Historical Man); and as man will experience them in the resurrection of the body (Eschatological Man). This forms his "adequate anthropology."

Everything God wants to tell us on earth about who he is, the meaning of life, the reason he created us, how we are to live, as well as our ultimate destiny, is contained somehow in the meaning of the human body and the call of male and female to become "one body" in marriage. How? Pointing always to the Scriptures, the Holy Father reminds us that the Christian mystery itself is a mystery about marriage &#8211; the marriage between Christ and the Church. Yes, God's plan from all eternity is to draw us into the closest communion with himself &#8211; to "marry" us! Jesus took on a body so we could become "one body" with him.

The pure man sees the revelation of the mystery of God in his sexuality, despite the endless ways man warps it. The pure man is able to take the "negative" image and allow the Holy Spirit to develop it into the corresponding "positive." This positive image makes visible the invisible mystery of God (cf. General Audience 2/20/80). In this way, the pure man sees God in the human body. How tragically misguided are those forms of spirituality that tend to equate holiness with a puritanical attitude toward sexuality!

If we can speak the truth with our bodies, we can also speak lies. Ultimately all questions of sexual morality come down to one simple question: Does this truly image God&#8217;s free, total, faithful, fruitful love or does it not?

This is the Good News of the Gospel. While we can't return to the state of original innocence, we can live as God intended "in the beginning" if we appropriate the redemption of our bodies (Ro 8:23). Experiencing this redemption is the call of every man and woman, married or unmarried. It's a mistake to think marriage somehow provides a "legitimate" outlet for our disordered sexual desires. In a clarion call for husbands to uphold the dignity of their wives, John Paul stated that a man can commit adultery "in his heart" even with his own wife if he treats her only as an object to satisfy concupiscence (cf. General Audience 10/8/80). Despite what the secular media had to say, the Pope was in no way suggesting that the marital relationship is itself adulterous. In a world that encourages sex merely to gratify disordered instinct, John Paul was calling spouses back to God's original intention of self-donation as the norm for sexual relations.

This is a difficult calling. Even the most devoted of spouses must face the reality of mixed motives and imperfect desires. But Christ has definitively revealed, fulfilled, and restored the nuptial meaning of the body by making a "sincere gift" of his own body to his Bride on the cross. This means loving as Christ loves is truly possible through the power of the Holy Spirit who has been poured into our hearts (Ro 5:5).

~CHRISTOPHER WEST

Anytime a person (married or not) desires to use another person for their own selfish means (instead of love them).....they are lusting (and not acting within the context of marriage that ought to be a symbol of God's love for us.

 

[Purge187]

1 Cor. 7:9 - "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Seems Paul is suggesting that sexual desire in its proper place is just fine.

 

[mkgal1]

1 Cor. 7:9 - "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Seems Paul is suggesting that sexual desire in its proper place is just fine.

I never said it wasn't. In fact.....that's just what I'm saying (and quoting others that said that as well). IMO......it goes beyond, "fine"......its how He reveals His mystery to us.

Let's not stop at the surface. Let's enter into the depths of the 'great mystery' of our creation as male and female." When we go into the depths of this "great mystery," we find ourselves at the very heart of the Gospel itself.

John Paul says, because of sin in the world, the body "loses its character as a sign" of God's love, and this makes it very difficult to see the body through any other lens than something inappropriate contentographic. We've been blinded to the holiness and sacredness of the body and thus find it very difficult to embrace, to quote Pope Benedict once again, "boldly erotic imagery" as something fitting for explaining holy realities. But the good news of the Gospel is that Christ came preaching sight for the blind. The whole point of the TOB is to help us reclaim a vision of the body and sex as a sign of God's love.~http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Ad...ing-Power-of-Sex-Deborah-Arca-02-01-2011.html

 

[BlindDidymus]

I would argue that St Paul says that it is better to marry than to burn so that fornication should be avoided. He is in no way approving the lustful passion which causes the burning. He is merely seeking to prevent the shame which would arise from fornication becoming known in the community.

 

[dayhiker]

To me Paul is saying that we should get married rather than go to the idol temple prostitutes, for what connection does God's Spirit have with Satan.