Lust, who's fault is it?

[chingchang]

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

It is Yahweh's "fault"...because he created the man to have those feelings. If he hadn't created us to have those feelings then we wouldn't have multiplied and filled the earth.

CC

 

[ittarter]

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

Perhaps this is a sign that we need to spend a few minutes defining the key term of the discussion.

 

[Archivist]

But why should that only apply to women? Our laws need to provide equal rights. Either no one should be allowed to go topless or both men and women should have the right to go topless.

 

[dayhiker]

My understanding of the Greek word for lust is better translated covet. Moaaat of the books I've read about sexual lust make it way stronger than the Bible does. But that's nothing new, its been going on since the 300's AD.

Thus I'd say there is not problem with anyone lustings over a topless person. A sinful porblem would come if they wanted to take that person sexually when they had no right to them.

dayhiker

 

[mike1para]

If the person doing the looking felt lust, then its not their fault, they would be under the influence of testosterone urging them to mate at the sight of the sexual organs of said topless person. The lookers maturity, testosterone, belief, and discipline levels would gage the depth and effect of the lust and the end outcome of the encounter.
Also the topless persons demeanor would play a big part in the end result where levels of naivety, provocation, testosterone would also play a big part.
I dont think there is a clear cut answer to this question.

 

[victoryuntojesus]

I would firstly like to state that I see a clear difference between lust and sexual desire: sexual desire is our natural sex drive, a very healthy and natural part of us which does not objectify the thing of our desires. Lust is a very unhealthy perversion of this natural sexual desire in which the person isn't desired in any wholesome way; the person is only desired for their body as an object.

Now that that's over and done with, lust is the fault of the objectifier. If a man or woman looks at their topless spouse and experiences sexual feelings, as long as they are not objectifying the other person in their thoughts, then nobody is at fault because no sin is being committed. If the looker objectifies the man or the woman, then the looker is at fault. If the topless man or woman is objectifying themself by exposing themself, then they are most certainly (also) at fault.

 

[AlAyeti]

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.

Swaggert and and what's his name that had gay sex? That's two and it shows how well Christian leadership is doing in NOT following the world and its ways.

I could easily name 50 Hollywood/MTV (liberals) types now couldn't I?

Wrong:

Rom 6:1 What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?

Yet it is you promoting gay sex for believers, and celebrating theat and them. Do you have a mirror?

Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?

Ask the liberals. They seem to have many excuses for it.

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

We are no longer "of" the world. yet, your side props up all of its activism in the world. You do realize that I hope.

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.

Conservative right wing fundamentalism huh?

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.

And? You better change your worldly ways or you will go to hell. Once again, the reality of conservatism.

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.

That's the bottom line. So we can now affirm the goodness of "ex-gay" and ex-adultery ministries.

Rom 6:7 For whoever has died is freed from sin.

Rom 6:1 "What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?"

If we sin, we have Jesus there for forgiveness IF we confess, He is quick to forgive. Isn't that the truth? Then it is NOT "judgmentalism" to oppose liberalism, it is doing what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

I'm glad you wanted me to answer your positions. It affirmed and reaffirmed why the Evangelical Church is so well grounded.

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.

A well reasoned conservative position.

I must be honest, it's a little nervy debating a Mod.

 

[Texan40]

Lust is a "sinful desire." All desires are not sinful. The desire to come closer to God is not "lust." The desire to make love to your spouse is not "lust" but a designed part of human life. The desire to have sex with the babysitter, however, is lust. All men "notice" a beautiful woman but not all men immediately have mental images of sex with her. Lust is a byproduct of allowing ourselves to indulge our own selfish fantasies, thus allowing Satan the part of Pavlov and ourselves the dog. Lust doesn't have to be about sex either... you can lust for food, money, fame, etc.

 

[AlAyeti]

Lust is a "sinful desire." All desires are not sinful. The desire to come closer to God is not "lust." The desire to make love to your spouse is not "lust" but a designed part of human life. The desire to have sex with the babysitter, however, is lust. All men "notice" a beautiful woman but not all men immediately have mental images of sex with her. Lust is a byproduct of allowing ourselves to indulge our own selfish fantasies, thus allowing Satan the part of Pavlov and ourselves the dog. Lust doesn't have to be about sex either... you can lust for food, money, fame, etc.

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. You have left your spouse in spirit and in the flesh.

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.

As you say:

All desires are not sinful.

 

[127.0.0.1]

It is Yahweh's "fault"...because he created the man to have those feelings. If he hadn't created us to have those feelings then we wouldn't have multiplied and filled the earth.

CC

You're forgetting, The Fall.

 

[dayhiker]

Lust objectifing a women ... wow, that is so nice, I've never objectified a woman. So I've never commited a sexual sin. Very nice.

dayhiker

 

[Leah]

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?

Read the whole 1st chapter of the book of James.

You'll find the answer there.



Never in my life have I seen so many people (myself included, at times) who are so unwilling to take responsibility for their own faults/flaws/lusts of their hearts more so than in this day and age we now live in. Instead, people use people as the scapegoats to avoid accountability and then even go so far as to presume on the mercy and grace of God, like He's just supposed to bless us anway. Its tragic.


All of us are responsible for making choices. Its not a matter about who's fault it is. Its about each of us doing what's right and that is to learn how to have SELF-CONTROL. That's one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Because let met tell you, we all will have to give an account to God for ourselves, not what someone else did and who's at fault for the lusts of our own hearts.

 

[Hupomone10]

But why should that only apply to women? Our laws need to provide equal rights. Either no one should be allowed to go topless or both men and women should have the right to go topless.

I'm sorry; but that's kind of ridiculous. If you had a teenage daughter, would you want your flowering teenage daughter to walk around the neighborhood topless? Since you mentioned "law", the law would apply to her as well as to us, unless we said you had to be 18. And if we did, aren't we implying that there's a reason for that? And on the subject of teenage daughter; would it change your mind on this to know there's a sexual predator in the neighborhood? Because, based on what I've seen in today's teenagers, it won't change hers.

Anyway, unless I misunderstood, this thread was about who's fault lust is rather than legality and equal rights. Just my thoughts...

 

[Archivist]

I'm sorry; but that's kind of ridiculous.

Thank you for those kind words. I think we can have a discussion without such statements.

If you had a teenage daughter, would you want your flowering teenage daughter to walk around the neighborhood topless?

If it was legal, why not?

Why not reverse your statement--if you had a teenage son would you want him to walk around the neighborhood topless? If you wouldn't have a problem with that then why should there be a double standard.

Since you mentioned "law", the law would apply to her as well as to us, unless we said you had to be 18. And if we did, aren't we implying that there's a reason for that?

To my knowledge there are no laws that forbid boys under 18 from going topless, so why shouldn't the standard be the same?

BTW, you do know that in many US communities during the Victorian era it was illegal for both sexes to go topless. Both men's and women's bathing suits included a top.

And on the subject of teenage daughter; would it change your mind on this to know there's a sexual predator in the neighborhood?

My understanding of sexual predators is that what she would be wearing wouldn't make any difference. In any event that doesn't justify making it illegal for women to go topless whaile allowing men to do so.

Because, based on what I've seen in today's teenagers, it won't change hers.

Agreed.

Anyway, unless I misunderstood, this thread was about who's fault lust is rather than legality and equal rights.

Correct, but I am most certainly allowed to respond to statements made in a particular post, which is what I was doing.

Just my thoughts...

And you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. Unlike you, I won't say that your view is "ridiculous," I just don't happen to agree.

 

[Hupomone10]

Yes, it is only my opinion. Just seemed a strange... no, ridiculous, suggestion to make on a Christian forum entitled, oddly enough, "ethics". That's all. Hope I haven't offended.

And I trust that you will be willing to defend this point of view when we stand before our Lord on That day and tell Him what you've written here? And yes, I must defend the thought that it's ridiculous to suggest that women be allowed in ANY society to go around topless, in front of young men, and children.

It will be interesting to see what He has to say; and on that day what He says is all that will matter. I wonder... hmmm, if the Lord Jesus will allow women to walk around in the Kingdom topless.
My money is on Not. And who knows, maybe I'll be wearing a shirt too!

 

[Archivist]

Yes, it is only my opinion.

And you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to my opinion.

Just seemed a strange... no, ridiculous, suggestion to make on a Christian forum entitled, oddly enough, "ethics".

Suggesting that women should have equal rights is ridiculous? If it is ethical for men to go topless in public, why is it unethical for women to go topless?

That's all. Hope I haven't offended.

You are certianly entitled to disagree with my opinion. However, to keep insisting that it is "ridiculous," is offensive.

And I trust that you will be willing to defend this point of view when we stand before our Lord on That day and tell Him what you've written here?

If I am wrong there willbe no defense on my part--my sins have been washed away by the blood of the Lamb.

And yes, I must defend the thought that it's ridiculous to suggest that women be allowed in ANY society to go around topless, in front of young men, and children.

That is because you were brought up in a society where women were not permitted to go topless. In many places throughout the world it is common practice for women to go topless in public. Interesting that you say that women shouldn't go topless in front of children given that mammary glands exist for the feeding of children, and in some cultures women commonly breast feed children as old as 5.

It will be interesting to see what He has to say; and on that day what He says is all that will matter. I wonder... hmmm, if the Lord Jesus will allow women to walk around in the Kingdom topless.

Maybe He will. There is, after all, nothing in scripture that indicates that Eve was forced to cover her breasts when she and Adam were expelled from the Garden.

My money is on Not.

And, again, you are entitled to your opinion. There is actually an organized Christian Naturalism movement (no, I am not a participant). Information can be found at Christian naturism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

And who knows, maybe I'll be wearing a shirt too!

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[Hupomone10]

Suggesting that women should have equal rights is ridiculous?

No, suggesting that women go topless in public is ridiculous.

If I am wrong there willbe no defense on my part--my sins have been washed away by the blood of the Lamb.

"Therefore also we have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." 2 Corinthians 5:9-10

"And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. "For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." Matthew 12:36-37

That is because you were brought up in a society where women were not permitted to go topless.

No, it is because I committed my life to live as best I could by God's Word and walk in the Spirit, rather than walking according to the flesh. I was brought up in a society that says it's ok to get drunk and abort your baby; but I don't get drunk and don't approve of murder of unborn children.

There is, after all, nothing in scripture that indicates that Eve was forced to cover her breasts when she and Adam were expelled from the Garden.

"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings... And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." Genesis 3:7,21

There is actually an organized Christian Naturalism movement...

There is also a Christian Atheist movement. This also can be found on Wikipedia. And I'm quite sure they're warm to the idea of women parading topless in public.

[bible]Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way... So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another... It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles... The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.[/bible] - Romans 14

For the Christian, it's not a matter of rights, but of right. And "right" for the Christian is determined by God's truth, not man's spin on the truth.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

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?

I'm pretty sure the one doing the lusting is at fault. And the one doing the tempting is also at fault, for they are creating a stumbling block for another person.

Edit: I meant person not persor.

 

[Hupomone10]

I'm pretty sure the one doing the lusting is at fault. And the one doing the tempting is also at fault, for they are creating a stumbling block for another persor.

Good thought; and thanks for getting this thread back on topic.

 

[127.0.0.1]

I wonder... hmmm, if the Lord Jesus will allow women to walk around in the Kingdom topless.
My money is on Not. And who knows, maybe I'll be wearing a shirt too!

You're suggesting in Heaven we might still be able to lust, thus sin, thus modesty is required?

You can wear a shirt if you like, a Tommy Hilfiger shirt.