Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I specifically began this entire conversation by making the distinction of love (natural sexual desire)....and lust (a distortion). I did that for the specific reason of not getting the two confused.You've spent a lot of effort writing on how to define lust as opposed to love. I think it does matter how we understand words like lust and even certain words that are used to describe certain sins.
For example, if someone thinks any sexual desire is lust.......
It is good that you brought up some scripture here, but the text does not say 'wife.' Honestly, that doesn't seem to make much sense, IMO, in light of how Paul refers to vessels elsewhere.
My point was to illustrate that not knowing what 'sin words' mean can lead to confusion and damage people's lives.
Adultery isn't the definition of lust.
All adultery *is* lust......not all lust is adultery.
Husbands are to love like Christ......right? Christ doesn't love in a selfish way that's opposed to God's will.
If concepts are understood (and the main focus).....things like, "love is not arrogant.....love isn't rude.......love isn't selfish......love considers others, just as it considers itself (and God).....and we are to walk in this sort of love" then, how can *that* damage lives?
I've been using the one verse (2nd Timothy 3---"lovers of pleasure (lust) RATHER THAN lovers of God") as support of lust being possible in marriage.
And certain it is, that the woman is called the "weaker vessel" in 1 Peter 3:7, between which passage and this there seems to be some agreement. The same metaphor of a "vessel" is made use of in both; and as there, honour to be given to the weaker vessel, so here, a man's vessel is to be possessed in honour; and as there, husbands are to dwell with their wives according to knowledge so here, knowledge is required to a man's possessing his vessel aright. Now for a man to possess his vessel in this sense, is to enjoy his wife, and to use that power he has over her in a becoming manner; see 1 Corinthians 7:4, and which is here directed to "in sanctification and honour"; that is, in a chaste and honourable way; for marriage is honourable when the bed is kept undefiled; and which may be defiled, not only by taking another into it, and which is not possessing the wife in sanctification and honour, it is the reverse, for it is a breaking through the rules of chastity and honour; but it may even be defiled with a man's own wife, by using her in an unnatural way, or by any unlawful copulation with her; for so to do is to use her in an unholy, unchaste, wicked, and dishonourable manner; whereas possessing of her according to the order and course of nature, is by the Jews, in agreement with the apostle, called (u), , "a man's sanctifying himself", and is chaste, and honourable. And it may be observed, that the Jews use the same phrase concerning conjugal embraces as the apostle does here. One of their canons runs thus (w):
If concepts are understood (and the main focus).....things like, "love is not arrogant.....love isn't rude.......love isn't selfish......love considers others, just as it considers itself (and God).....and we are to walk in this sort of love" then, how can *that* damage lives?
Ummm.....I *never* said "understanding sin wasn't important" (or anything even close to that). I said I don't understand the obsession with making sure the "exact" sin label is placed on sinful behavior or attitudes.If understanding sin wasn't important, why would so many pages be devoted to it in the Bible? Which did the Lord Jesus spend more pages talking about, love or greed?
^^Good find!
Ummm.....I *never* said "understanding sin wasn't important" (or anything even close to that). I said I don't understand the obsession with making sure the "exact" sin label is placed on sinful behavior or attitudes.
For instance......lust can be called idolatry.....it can be called pride......it can be called arrogance.....it can be called selfishness......etc. Does it *really* matter if I call it lust or idolatry or even pride?
I think that's what you were getting at with the porn. I do agree with you there are ways to unnaturally want your spouse things such as sodomy ect but two spouse's practicing and wanting natural sex with natural sexual desires can not lust after each other....would you agree.
As I have said if a spouse get's into an argument with the other spouse and he or she see's their spouse get out of the shower or whatever and they think in their mind "hmmm they look good oh boy I can't wait for tonight" is that lust?
For instance......lust can be called idolatry.....it can be called pride......it can be called arrogance.....it can be called selfishness......etc. Does it *really* matter if I call it lust or idolatry or even pride? All of those labels can't be confused with what is holy or good. That's the reason why lust needs to be separated out from genuine love----because they *aren't* both holy.
Is it a sin to force or manipulate your spouse to have sex with you, of course. But saying that it is lust can affect new Christians that are newly wed in a negative manner.
How so?
God's truth and love brings forth life and freedom.
Sin brings death (even death of a marriage) and bondage.........so, why not call sin--"sin"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?