Lust, who's fault is it?

[127.0.0.1]

If a woman is topless, and a man looks, and lusts, is it the woman's fault? Or the man's?

If a man is topless (and with hot bod), and a woman looks, and lusts, is it the man's fault? Or the woman's?

 

[seekingbutnotfinding]

I would say it's the looker's fault.

Lust, in my view, does not come from simply being attracted to someone--it comes from the desire to objectify and control that person. Even those who walk around topless want to be treated with the dignity and respect of a human being.

 

[Dominic Korozya]

The bible clearly states the God will not allow temptation to temp us beyond what we can can resist. So yes, the sin is your own and you cannot blame any other humanbeing.

 

[Archivist]

The fault lies with the person doing the looking.

Men and women should have equal rights when it comes to going topless in public. It should either be prohibited for both men and women or both men and women should have the right to go topless.

 

[LyraJean]

The person who looks. Not the person being topless. After all a person cannot control another person's thoughts.

 

[Zebra1552]

Excuse me- I gots a dumb question for ya.




...



Why is merely looking at a naked being enough to cause 'lust'? And what is 'lust'?

 

[LyraJean]

Excuse me- I gots a dumb question for ya.




...



Why is merely looking at a naked being enough to cause 'lust'? And what is 'lust'?

Just looking at a naked being doesn't necessarily cause lust. I've seen bare chested men and I didn't want to have anything to do with them. They weren't all fat slobs either. Lusting is a form of covetousness as I understand it. So no just seeing a naked body doesn't cause lust. Lust is wanting that person for yourself only to use and discard as you see fit.

Think of Absalom and his half-sister Tamar. He lusted after her and then raped her. Then he didn't want anything to do with her anymore. I don't really think that Absalom ever saw Tamar naked.

 

[wayseer]

What's wrong with lust anyway?

 

[ittarter]

If a woman is topless, and a man looks, and lusts, is it the woman's fault? Or the man's?

If a man is topless (and with hot bod), and a woman looks, and lusts, is it the man's fault? Or the woman's?

Both are at fault. Scripture regularly condemns women for wearing provocative clothing. Err, I think it does, anyway

Likewise, whoever covets a woman by looking at her also commits sin. Straight out of the horse's (err, Jesus') mouth.

This seems pretty straightforward to me. In a world where everyone is trying there darnedest to "pass the buck," we all could stand a huge reality check and be responsible for our part in the evil around us, no matter how many people we can think of blaming.

 

[Archivist]

Both are at fault. Scripture regularly condemns women for wearing provocative clothing. Err, I think it does, anyway

Actually no. Scripture says that a women is to dress modestly, but the examples of modesty that it gives deal with overdressing, not underdressing.

 

[AlAyeti]

If a woman is topless, and a man looks, and lusts, is it the woman's fault? Or the man's?

If a man is topless (and with hot bod), and a woman looks, and lusts, is it the man's fault? Or the woman's?

Let us reason what Jesus was referring to. It was in regards to adultery.
Cheating on your spouse in modern vernacular and certainly no different 2000-plus years ago.

Lust equals seduction. Action in thought or deed.

Once the heart is turned to coniving and plotting, obviously a detachment of a commitment is underway.

I can certainly look at the neighbors hot college age daughter, without "lusting" for, or trying to seduce her into a sexual encounter.

And my heart and my marriage is intact, spiritually and physically.

Here is the context. Matthew 5:

27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Divorce

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Oaths

33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

 

[Zebra1552]

Then why the heck does the American church always refer to lust as a problem? I'm pretty sure the average American Christian doesn't walk around intending to rape people.

 

[AlAyeti]

Then why the heck does the American church always refer to lust as a problem?

Because too many people indulge their lusts in real life behavior, based on real thoughts to engage in lust derived behavior.

"In the world and not of it." That is the goal, but our hearts are wicked things. Right?

I'm pretty sure the average American Christian doesn't walk around intending to rape people.

Rape is forced sexual intercourse. Our current society shows that an incredibly large number of people don't need to be forced to do anything sexually inappropriate because the "way of the world" is to indulge yourself no matter the cost.

Jesus is just "being real" on this aspect of life.

 

[Zebra1552]

Because too many people indulge their lusts in real life behavior, based on real thoughts to engage in lust derived behavior.

Oh, really? Name me 50 well-known Christians in the last 10 years who have 'indulge their lusts in real life behavior'. While you're at it, define what that is.

"In the world and not of it." That is the goal, but our hearts are wicked things. Right?

Wrong:

Rom 6:1 What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?
Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.
Rom 6:7 For whoever has died is freed from sin.

Rape is forced sexual intercourse. Our current society shows that an incredibly large number of people don't need to be forced to do anything sexually inappropriate because the "way of the world" is to indulge yourself no matter the cost.

Jesus is just "being real" on this aspect of life.

The thought 'it'd be nice to have sex with them, they're sexually appealing' is quite a bit different from 'I'm going to try to have sex with that person'. One's intent, one's not.

 

[AlAyeti]

The thought 'it'd be nice to have sex with them, they're sexually appealing' is quite a bit different from 'I'm going to try to have sex with that person'. One's intent, one's not.

Didn't that just agree with this?

Originally Posted by AlAyeti

Because too many people indulge their lusts in real life behavior, based on real thoughts to engage in lust derived behavior.
​

 

[Lemmiwinks]

What's wrong with lust anyway?

Good point. If my dad hadn't lusted after my mom, I wouldn't exist.

 

[Zebra1552]

Didn't that just agree with this?

No, it didn't, and I'd appreciate an answer to my questions.

 

[Hupomone10]

Actually no. Scripture says that a women is to dress modestly, but the examples of modesty that it gives deal with overdressing, not underdressing.

A famous Chinese Christian once pointed out that the purpose for clothing is to cover skin, not uncover. Simple wisdom, but profound. For those who would doubt that both are at fault, I would recommend we look to the source, and Romans 14. To the man I would say "flee youthful lusts." To the woman I would say, if you wear honey on your skin don't be surprised if it attracts bees, and you get stung a little.

 

[ittarter]

Actually no. Scripture says that a women is to dress modestly, but the examples of modesty that it gives deal with overdressing, not underdressing.

A cultural superficiality. Just because the definition of immodest attire has changed by no means affects the validity of my observation.

 

[wayseer]

Good point. If my dad hadn't lusted after my mom, I wouldn't exist.

Exactly.