Lust

[Soyeong]

Agreed. This is a good paragraph.

I wonder about that. It has a right sound to it, but I think it may overlook just how complex the heart really can be at times. "Fear of the Lord" as a means of affecting our behavior is a pretty legitimate concept, endorsed in the OT proverbs (Proverbs 9:10) and also by Jesus in in the gospels (Matthew 10:29). If I' being tortured or persecuted for my faith, I may fantasize about denying my faith for the sake of making the pain stop, but if the bottom line is that my fear of "him who can destroy the soul" stops me from doing so, then my behavior (or heart) is still consistent with what Jesus taught despite whatever fantasies I may have had along the way.

I am suggesting that a similar approach could be taken toward sex-thoughts.

Jesus said that if we think lustfully about someone, then we have committed adultery with them in our hearts. The command against coveting in against desiring what someone else has in our hearts, so while it is good not to commit theft, we should also not even desire to commit theft in our hearts. If we think about doing something long enough, then we generally end up doing it, so our thoughts lead to our actions. All of God's laws were given as instructions for how to demonstrate our love for Him, to demonstrate our faith in Him about how we should live, and to thereby grow in a relationship with Him based on love and faith, so if we are outwardly obeying God's law because our arm is being twisted and not because of our love and faith, then we are defeating its point. Prior to Paul's Damascus road experience, he had been keeping the law without have a focus on his relationship with Messiah, so he had been missing the whole point, and considered it to be rubbish. Yes, we should fear God, but it is not about being afraid of God so much as it is about have awe, reverence, and respect towards Him. God is not safe, but He is holy, righteous, and good.

Well, my response would be to ask if it is disobedience to God to think about sex at all, in any context? If so, then you've got a neat little paradox, because one must think about something before they can decide the rightness or wrongness of it.

If not, then we must work out which contexts are okay and which are not and I think when we start down that road things can become verrrry tricky because neither God nor the human heart are simple. But, I think it's a road that needs to be explored if we really do want to learn more truth and perhaps it is the complexity (or the potential challenge to deeply held beliefs) of this exploration that causes so many of us to retreat into the safety of phrases like, "We need to align both our actions and desires with God". The statement is certainly true enough, but without getting into the nitty-gritty of what it means, in practical, day-to-day life (like what kind of "sex-thoughts" are okay and what kind are not) the phrase loses it's value.

When someone who is sexually attractive walks by, you can have an improper thought enter your brain about what you would like to do with them through no fault of your own, so there is nothing sinful about that. However, you now have a decision to make about what to do with that thought for which you are responsible. If you dwell on that thought or start to fantasize about it, then you are choosing to think lustfully about them, which is sin. However, we are told to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5), not to let them roam free.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

But I did not mean to imply that that was your intent. My apologies.

No apology necessary. I didn't take offense as the evidence I've seen indicates you try pretty hard to be respectful even when you're disagreeing. I think you have valid concerns on this issue and I'm fine to hear them. I don't mind being challenged, so feel free to speak your mind.

What really struck me though is that you see my statements as "legalistic" - no offense is taken, btw, but this is how I know that I must not be explaining well. I would say what I suggest is the far end of the spectrum from legalism, while what you propose strikes me more so (also no offense intended).

Heh, striking or interesting. I'd like to think they're synonymous in this case. I think we all have a bit of legalism and flexibility. I think, the reason why I believe I'm advocating flexibility in this case is that I'm not trying to present any formula for justifying sexual sin (whether in thought or deed) but rather to leave room to consider that one person's sin may not be the same for another.

Here's an example...

but that would be for married persons, about their spouses, and in a non-objectifying, loving way.

I believe "objectifying" is relative. One couple's "objectifying" may be another couples exciting activity. Because of this, we can't make a rule out of "objectifying" without becoming legalistic. Each case must be examined on it's own merits (i.e. circumstances, contexts, and personal desires of those involved).

In the case of pornography I'd feel pretty confident about saying that the participants (both male and female) are being objectified as sexual objects (as opposed to humans with feelings and spiritual needs) despite them voluntarily consenting to (and perhaps even enjoying) the behavior, but my decision would be based on the fact that money is changing hands. If they weren't getting the money, they probably wouldn't be participating in the behavior. I could not say the same thing for a married couple who mutually consented to play around with wild ideas that one would normally expect from porn. The concept of "objectifying" as a judgment in itself changes its meaning from one case to the next and so makes an unreliable factor, unless it is combined with motive. I'm suggesting that, as it is with the difference between porn stars and consenting married couples (both of whom may perform the same activities, but with different motives and circumstances), so it could be with "sex-thoughts".

As to how much it varies between persons I can only think that there are circumstances where it would be acceptable to engage in thoughts of a sexual nature - but that would be for married persons, about their spouses,

I'm curious how you'd interpret a single person who has a sexual fantasy about a person they are only married to in the fantasy itself? Not a real person, but an imagined person.

Those who are chaste and engaged will no doubt have the subject on their minds as well, but it is best for the sake of chastity not to give that free reign.

Agreed. When it comes to sex-thoughts about a real person, especially a person we know personally, and especially a person we're already inclined to want to be physically intimate with (like a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship or engagement), it can lead to a seriously slippery slope to indulge in fantasies about them, though it would seem to make sense that you'd fantasize about the person you love. We're not designed to become asexual through sheer will power and this would be especially true for a romantically involved couple. It may be unreasonable to expect that they'd not have any sex-thoughts about one another before the marriage and yet, it is precisely because they have strong feelings for one another that the more they fantasize the more likely they'll be to to want to act on those fantasies. A conundrum indeed!

Perhaps this is an area where the concept of "forsaking your family" really shines forth as particularly relevant. If we can't put our feelings under control regarding fornication then what other areas of trouble will those strong feelings lead us to later?

The key is that I am not suggesting "at what point do we incur sanctions" from God, whether that be need of forgiveness, punishment, and/or whatever one sees as the result.

Instead, I am asking - how does this affect the person?

I think they are inextricable. If we do not carefully examine where the line is drawn (which is all the more tricky when the line constantly shifts according to motivation and circumstances) then we're likely to cross it regardless of the consequences, and if we do not carefully consider how the sin will affect us, then we're likely to cross the line even if we do know exactly where it's drawn. And, I don't think there is any rule which can accurately determine that one must always come before the other. I think It depends.

On the other hand, I think most people who have not tried would be amazed at how much control a person can gain, with the help of God, over all kinds of thoughts and feelings. Forgive me, but to say that it's only to be expected because we are human, while widely accepted, becomes an excuse for not trying.

I agree that when it comes to sin, excuses can be found in just about any doctrine or behavior. But, when it comes to sex, there is a long history of seriously disturbed people who felt they had to become asexual through sheer willpower, which is something I don't see in the teachings of Jesus anywhere. I've met people who practically live day-to-day in guilt about even having any kind of thoughts about sex. They constantly worry and need to ask for forgiveness, and then they worry about even asking for forgiveness because they know their just gonna have some kind of sex-thought again and then they ask for forgiveness for asking for forgiveness when they know they're just gonna sin again and around and around they go.

While it's true that God can help us to control our sexual desires, I don't see anything about him expecting us not to have any sexual desires at all, and if we have some sexual desires then it follows that we think about those desires, at least some of the time. There must be some kind of middle ground where we're not just making excuses to justify lust, but also where we're not trying to carry a burden we've not been asked to carry.

I think this is where masturbation becomes the relevant compromise. It is the natural alternative for dealing with sexual tension (whether psychological or hormonal).

I can't answer that without knowing how it would play out in a person's mind. And indeed, I'm not qualified to be a personal advisor on such things. I will say that you could be right, that motivation can be a factor, but I like to consider what I said above - that basically, if the sexual act would not be allowed, then thinking about it is sinful.

Thank you for this consideration.

The other potential problem I see is that some people, in an exercise of examining their motives, could make one of several errors. The first I see is the potential to justify themselves through their motives.

That's true, and yet the more serious error would be to do no examination at all (I'm reminded of the parable of the talents). People will make mistakes. They may even give in to justifications or convenient doctrines, but that is all a part of learning, too. Consider it from the perspective of the creation of humans in the first place. We've been given the freedom to turn away from the creator of the universe, and by the billions, apparently. Surely it must hurt God very much and yet he still felt it was worth the risk for those few individuals who do have the sincerity to choose rightness.

The second is that simply engaging with a thought if they ought not just keeps the door open longer and involves the person a bit more, and one who is undisciplined can easily slip back into fantasy while believing they are just thinking about the fantasy as a meta-thought. There are probably other potential pitfalls as well that I'm not thinking of. The human heart can be very deceitful ... having a plan in place to deal with thoughts before they happen is fruitful.

I think there is a precedent for the concept of becoming more and more enamored with sin the more we meditate on it (in terms of indulging a temptation). I think this concern is valid. Perhaps it could be (at least in some cases) an issue of spiritual maturity, like the difference between milk and meat, where a mature Christian is able to delve into more spiritually complex issues which would confuse or cause to stumble a less experienced Christian. I'm reminded of Jesus claiming that the gates of hell cannot prevail against us so long as our faith is built on the rock. It makes me think that we have the freedom to explore any spiritually questionable issue, anything at all, so long as we remember to stick to the teachings of Jesus as our guide.

As for your suggestion of having a plan to deal with thoughts before they happen; I whole heartedly agree. But a plan can't be designed (at least not with any hope of accuracy) without examination of the issues for which the plan must account.

But if I understand you right, I will say that one can fantasize about illicit sexual activity that they could get away with committing, but don't (for whatever reason) and still be sinning.

I agree, except with one distinction. In my suggested example it wasn't "for whatever reason" that the person refrained, but rather because they did not actually want to sin (even though they wouldn't be caught).

This is contrasted with the person who does refrain for whatever reason (meaning they fear being caught, or they fear being rejected, or whatever it may be). But if they could get away with it, if they wouldn't be caught, if they wouldn't be rejected, then they would go through with it then in that case, I'd say the thought does make them guilty regardless of their behavior.

Simply, if a person is unmarried and has no outlet for sexual gratification, do you think it's a good idea for them to spend significant amounts of time fantasizing about sexual activity?

"Significant" is pretty broad, so I'll have to say, depends. I'd suggest that, even if the person is married, they can still be guilty of dedicating "significant" amounts of time on sexual gratification (even if it with their spouse). So much depends on the personal motivation and what's happening in that individual's walk with God at that time.