Lust

[Endtime Survivors]

Hi all. Over in the "Traditional theology questions and answers forum" thread a person named "Question ?" asked about lust a little over a month ago (post#44 and 49). There were some other topics going on at the same time so it didn't get very far (though a couple people gave a response). I felt the question he asked was quite good and deserved it's own thread. Here's the post...

"My problem is what comes first, the thought with just thought and no feeling are thought first then feeling second? To me, lust means sexual desire are feeling emotion after the thought, not before the thought. Where does the heart come involved as well as the body emotion are feeling? name one" [emphasis added by me]

I think lust is very much an issue of motives (i.e. the heart). My understanding is that it's not wrong to think about sex, to fantasize, imagine etc.

For example, if a person has the opportunity to fornicate with another person, and to get away with it with no consequences or fear of being caught, they may fantasize about it, and perhaps even seriously consider it for a time, but if the bottom line is that they decide against going through with it because they don't want to sin, then I do not believe their previous thoughts about sex would constitute lust.

On the other hand, if the person has an opportunity, and only refrains from going through with it for fear of being caught, then that does constitute lust.

It's similar to the concept that hatred equates to murder. The underlying motive is all important to God, and as a result "lust" is something that only God and the individual can truly discern. There's no real way to police it from the outside, except perhaps through deep sharing, confession, and Godly counsel.

 

[EmmaCat]

Sometimes folks do succomb to lust and make love with those they wouldn't marry. But I think when one finds the right one, wife or husband, lust goes out the window at that point.

 

[Alithis]

Hi all. Over in the "Traditional theology questions and answers forum" thread a person named "Question ?" asked about lust a little over a month ago (post#44 and 49). There were some other topics going on at the same time so it didn't get very far (though a couple people gave a response). I felt the question he asked was quite good and deserved it's own thread. Here's the post...

"My problem is what comes first, the thought with just thought and no feeling are thought first then feeling second? To me, lust means sexual desire are feeling emotion after the thought, not before the thought. Where does the heart come involved as well as the body emotion are feeling? name one" [emphasis added by me]

I think lust is very much an issue of motives (i.e. the heart). My understanding is that it's not wrong to think about sex, to fantasize, imagine etc.

For example, if a person has the opportunity to fornicate with another person, and to get away with it with no consequences or fear of being caught, they may fantasize about it, and perhaps even seriously consider it for a time, but if the bottom line is that they decide against going through with it because they don't want to sin, then I do not believe their previous thoughts about sex would constitute lust.

On the other hand, if the person has an opportunity, and only refrains from going through with it for fear of being caught, then that does constitute lust.

It's similar to the concept that hatred equates to murder. The underlying motive is all important to God, and as a result "lust" is something that only God and the individual can truly discern. There's no real way to police it from the outside, except perhaps through deep sharing, confession, and Godly counsel.

he is wrong ..

 

[~Anastasia~]

In the Orthodox tradition, we don't really ask the question in those terms. Essentially, that seems to be asking "how close can I get to sin without offending God?"

But rather than a primarily legal way of looking at sin, we view it more as a sickness that God would have us healed from, just as the early Church emphasized. (The Greek for "save" - sozo - is also translated "heal" in some places, but it is the same word.)

In that context, we don't want to know how close we can get and still "get away with it" legally. Rather, what is important is how sin affects us, and how we can pursue becoming progressively healed from it, in our desire to become more like Christ. (Acknowledging, as always, that God's grace plays an essential role as well.)

We do understand stages of temptation/sin, toward this purpose.

Firstly, the thought comes to us. Perhaps a temptation from demons, perhaps an urge from our flesh, some combination, etc. The source doesn't matter. This is not sin, and it is something that happens to all of us throughout our lives.

The temptation will affect affect us in some way if we can't/don't repel it at that stage. That disturbance is also not yet sin. It hasn't hurt us in any way, made us weaker to fall next time, etc.

The next stage is important. If we begin to enjoy the temptation, think about it, turn it over and play with it in our minds, and consider the possibilities, this is where sin can begin to build. It is true that we have committed no act yet, but yet we are engaging those tendencies, and in so doing, we feed them just a bit, strengthen them, and this begins to weaken our "immune systems" and let the infection grow a bit stronger, and we are moving away from being like Christ at this point.

Of course, it is a much more severe sin to go further past this point, and move to carrying out actions. That will place us even FURTHER from being Christ-like, and spread sin to others as well.

Depending on where a person is in learning to deal with sin, our current strength, how much we rely on God, we are more successful at cutting off sin at earlier stages. Though we can certainly become less able than we previously were for any number of reasons. But ideally, we keep making some kind of overall progress, and pursue more and more purity, become stronger against temptation, and become more like Christ. This is a large part of our cooperation with God in the process of our salvation (no real progress is possible in our own strength without God).

That is basically our tradition's view of temptation and sin.

This is a pretty good podcast on the subject, with transcript as well - The Six Stages of Temptation on Ancient Faith Radio

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

I must I must
I must decrease my lust!

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I'd say yes, if they thought about it or even fantasized about then its lust. When I was younger as a teen there were a girl I liked (never told her though) and admittedly when at places like the beach with all the families I was lustful of her. Tried to think of what was under her suit, tried to sneak a peak if she bent over. I can admit it at this time because as I grew older I knew how disgusting that was to do as a young christian teen. Lust is lust. And if your married and thinking about it (of someone else) then its cheating.

Sadly in todays world when it comes to sexual stuff, most christians keep quiet for fear of judgment. When 80% of christians have seen porn or still look at it... you knows there are sexual issues going on that aren't being talked about at church. I know pastors tend to shy away from the subject but it does need to be talked about because lust is just the start of a longer road that leads to things like actual sex before marriage or extremely bad porn.

Which might I add is ironic that pastors won't talk about it in a sermon, but yet the Song of Solomon is pretty much X-Rated. We've all read that song, though usually its not until your older you realize what exactly its talking about. Which is why marriage is wonderful, Solomon celebrated that part of marriage.

Ok sorry for ranting off topic lol.

 

[wayfaring man]

>


LUST - living under satan's tyranny.


Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: <---> Colossians 3:5


Above verse says to 'mortify your members'...

Covetousness - the conscious mind - where the temptation is first presented.

Evil concupiscence - the sub-conscious mind, where the intial thought of lust lodges, if not rejected right away by the conscious mind.

Inordinate affection - the heart - which is affected by the familiarity of that which is retained by the mind.

Uncleanness - the mouth - for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and it's not what goes in, but what comes out of our mouth that defiles us. (Or justifies us.)

Fornication - the body - once the minds, heart and mouth have been swayed the body is then enslaved.

**************************
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. <---> 2nd Corinthians 6:18

Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; <---> 1st Peter 2:11

***************************
The process of an idea entering the conscious mind, then being filed away in the subconscious mind, to be treasured up in the heart, and be regurgitated out of the mouth, and consequently confirming / commanding the body, as a means of assimulating a spiritual emphasis into our being - is the same process whether it be lust unto sin; or purity unto holiness.

****************************
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you. <---> Philippians 4:8+9

****************************
The key is in being fully persuaded, and thereby single eyed / minded.

****************************

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. <---> James 1:8


The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! <---> Matthew 6:22+23

Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit. <---> Ecclesiastes 6:9

Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee. <---> Proverbs 4:25

I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? <---> Job 31:1

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. <---> 1st John 2:15-17

Amen.

 

[EmmaCat]

This happened to me. I had to think, is this lust or love? My husband said, "It's not the first one ... it's the last one who solidies your heart."

He had been with women, but when he met me and we dated, we had to keep lust away and find joy in the real things that matter.

My honeymoon night was ... woooooo!

 

[Anhelyna]

Welcome to TT EmmaCat

SO glad to hear you are settling into married life now - it will change your outlook on some things.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

But rather than a primarily legal way of looking at sin, we view it more as a sickness that God would have us healed from, just as the early Church emphasized. (The Greek for "save" - sozo - is also translated "heal" in some places, but it is the same word.)

In that context, we don't want to know how close we can get and still "get away with it" legally. Rather, what is important is how sin affects us, and how we can pursue becoming progressively healed from it, in our desire to become more like Christ. (Acknowledging, as always, that God's grace plays an essential role as well.)

I'm not suggesting that we try to game the system, though I recognize the temptation to do so. It is a necessary part of understanding what is, and what is not sin that we consider where the line is between the two. I think the line depends on the individual and the circumstances, meaning it will be different every time and I believe this is where I really am promoting flexibility as opposed to the legalism you suggested.

As someone suggested over on the other thread where this question originally appeared, we can't become asexual through sheer will power and that we are designed to care about and think about sex. Even if it is only in terms of reproduction (as opposed to pleasure for the sake of pleasure) there will be some thoughts about sex. In other words, it comes across as unrealistic to suggest that any thoughts about sex, period, must be sinful. I don't think you are suggesting this, but I also think we don't have clarity on this issue of "sex thoughts" in general.

If it is true that not any and all thoughts of sex are wrong, then where is the line drawn between the two? I would like to suggest that, in principle, the line will always be relative to the individual's personal motives. This is where careful self-examination as to where the line may happen to be, at any given moment, is critical.

The next stage is important. If we begin to enjoy the temptation, think about it, turn it over and play with it in our minds, and consider the possibilities, this is where sin can begin to build. It is true that we have committed no act yet, but yet we are engaging those tendencies, and in so doing, we feed them just a bit, strengthen them, and this begins to weaken our "immune systems" and let the infection grow a bit stronger, and we are moving away from being like Christ at this point.

I believe this part of your post is consistent with what I've shared, except for one small difference. I think that, even if the act isn't committed, the person can still be guilty, based on motive. This is why, in my previous post, I gave the example of a person who wants to fornitcate, but only refrains from doing so because they fear being caught. What's happening in their heart is more important to God than what they actually do.

The opposite can also be true, where a person fantasizes about fornication and, even if they could get away with it (meaning no consequences) they still would not do it, based on their personal integrity. Notice I said that it can be true and not that it always will be. The key is motivation, and only God and the individual can really know if they crossed the line from "thoughts about sex are not wrong in themselves" to "if I could I would" and even then many of us would probably be in denial over it.

But this mostly relates to fleeting encounters and this is where I feel your concern is probably most valid in that the argument could easily become justification for going around fantasizing about every person we see. In general I think it is a bad idea for people to include real people in whatever "thoughts about sex" they may have (especially when it's people they actually know in real life), precisely because, as you've suggested, temptation can easily become a slippery slope.

 

[sparow]

Lust has a special Biblical meaning, it is a theological jargon, that is more specific than it's secular usage; lust is always bad; Biblically, thinking about it is the same as doing it; sin is more to do with ones mind than ones actions; it is in one's mind and heart where God looks

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I'd say yes, if they thought about it or even fantasized about then its lust. When I was younger as a teen there were a girl I liked (never told her though) and admittedly when at places like the beach with all the families I was lustful of her. Tried to think of what was under her suit, tried to sneak a peak if she bent over. I can admit it at this time because as I grew older I knew how disgusting that was to do as a young christian teen. Lust is lust. And if your married and thinking about it (of someone else) then its cheating.

And yet, in order to share your example, you had to think about it. You had to remember what it was like to think about that girl, to peek at her etc. I think the most likely response from you (to this point) would probably be something like, "Yeah but I was only thinking about it as an example and not as something from which I'm drawing sexual pleasure" which I'd have no reason to doubt, but then that does necessarily create a gray area where there is room to think about sex in a way that doesn't count as lust. In other words, not all thoughts about sex come from the same motive or produce the same results.

Sadly in todays world when it comes to sexual stuff, most christians keep quiet for fear of judgment. When 80% of christians have seen porn or still look at it... you knows there are sexual issues going on that aren't being talked about at church.

Agreed.

 

[Dave-W]

Which might I add is ironic that pastors won't talk about it in a sermon, but yet the Song of Solomon is pretty much X-Rated.

And many classic commentaries will tell you to take SoS as having anything to do with sex is in itself a sexual perversion. The ENTIRE meaning is allegorical.

Of course that totally ignores the structure of the Hebrew language which supports several levels of meaning; with all levels being simultaneously true.

 

[Dave-W]

The church I attended in college defined lust as any desire that could not be satisfied.

Which meant that any sexual thought feeling desire or fantasy BEFORE the words "I Do" are spoken is defined as lust. Since the majority of the congregants were college age - they specifically taught that if you find yourself attracted in a sexual way to someone, DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER marrying them. The congregational leaders actually ordered a few couples to break up when they found out there had been sexual desires. (their morality police came around every few months to question us on these topics)

 

[Paidiske]

If it is true that not any and all thoughts of sex are wrong, then where is the line drawn between the two? I would like to suggest that, in principle, the line will always be relative to the individual's personal motives.

I think, when we are talking about sexual thoughts/sexual sin, there is another layer as well. Are you thinking of the other person as a person, with her own integrity, conscience, desires, will, and so forth, and seeking the best for her in your encounter? Or are you thinking of the other person as a means to the end of your own pleasure?

I think a great deal of lust comes down to looking at the other person as a personal-gratification-device, rather than as a person.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I think, when we are talking about sexual thoughts/sexual sin, there is another layer as well. Are you thinking of the other person as a person, with her own integrity, conscience, desires, will, and so forth, and seeking the best for her in your encounter? Or are you thinking of the other person as a means to the end of your own pleasure?

I think a great deal of lust comes down to looking at the other person as a personal-gratification-device, rather than as a person.

This is true, although I would observe that the entirety of modern civilization seems to be pushing us towards the perversion of relationship in this manner.

 

[Soyeong]

Hi all. Over in the "Traditional theology questions and answers forum" thread a person named "Question ?" asked about lust a little over a month ago (post#44 and 49). There were some other topics going on at the same time so it didn't get very far (though a couple people gave a response). I felt the question he asked was quite good and deserved it's own thread. Here's the post...

"My problem is what comes first, the thought with just thought and no feeling are thought first then feeling second? To me, lust means sexual desire are feeling emotion after the thought, not before the thought. Where does the heart come involved as well as the body emotion are feeling? name one" [emphasis added by me]

I think lust is very much an issue of motives (i.e. the heart). My understanding is that it's not wrong to think about sex, to fantasize, imagine etc.

For example, if a person has the opportunity to fornicate with another person, and to get away with it with no consequences or fear of being caught, they may fantasize about it, and perhaps even seriously consider it for a time, but if the bottom line is that they decide against going through with it because they don't want to sin, then I do not believe their previous thoughts about sex would constitute lust.

On the other hand, if the person has an opportunity, and only refrains from going through with it for fear of being caught, then that does constitute lust.

It's similar to the concept that hatred equates to murder. The underlying motive is all important to God, and as a result "lust" is something that only God and the individual can truly discern. There's no real way to police it from the outside, except perhaps through deep sharing, confession, and Godly counsel.

Sin is always a choice that we are responsible for making. We can help the way that we feel or whether we are sexually attracted to someone, but we can still choose how to act in response to how we feel. God was critical of people for honoring Him with their mouths while their hearts are far from Him, so God has always been after our hearts, and obedience to Him has always been a heart issue. If you fantasize about disobeying God's commands, but obey anyway because you don't want to be punished, then your heart is not in the right place. Throughout the Psalms, it talks about the joy and the delight of obeying God's law and that is the proper attitude toward obedience to God where it is an expression of our love and of our we have faith in Him about how we should live. Our attitude should not be that would rather not obey God, but do so anyway because He is twisting our arm. We need to align both our actions and our desires with God.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I think, when we are talking about sexual thoughts/sexual sin, there is another layer as well. Are you thinking of the other person as a person, with her own integrity, conscience, desires, will, and so forth, and seeking the best for her in your encounter? Or are you thinking of the other person as a means to the end of your own pleasure?

I think a great deal of lust comes down to looking at the other person as a personal-gratification-device, rather than as a person.

Excellent observation. I know a youth pastor who had to deal with something like this. Some of the young men he supervised were using a variation of the concept I've been promoting on this thread (i.e. motives of the heart) where they would justify watching porn on the basis that they would not, if they had the chance, act on the things they were seeing. Masturbation was enough for them, and the porn helped with that. He did not agree (and neither do I).

So he approached the situation from another angle, a two pronged attack. First he asked them to consider that every click was a click of support for the industry (they had argued that, because it was on the internet they weren't supporting the industry because it was all free). But, more clicks means more popularity which translates to more advertising which translates to more profits which translates to better pay which translates to more motive for people to become physically involved (the worldly monetary system is designed to create an atmosphere where better pay is more important than what it is we're being paid for).

This led into the other prong, which was to ask them to consider how the participant's desire for monetary gain was causing them (the young men) to be self righteous in how they interpreted the situation. They were, in effect, exploiting the participant's desire for money and as a result they had stopped viewing them as real people. It had not occurred to them that the statement, "I'm just using it to help with my masturbation" translated to, "I'm using other human beings for my personal gratification".

So, I very much appreciate your contribution that how we choose to view other people around us (their spirit and their spiritual needs rather than just their physical appearance) is super important and it's why I strongly recommend that, in whatever sex-thoughts we may have, we should avoid incorporating real people into them.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Sin is always a choice that we are responsible for making. We can help the way that we feel or whether we are sexually attracted to someone, but we can still choose how to act in response to how we feel. God was critical of people for honoring Him with their mouths while their hearts are far from Him, so God has always been after our hearts, and obedience to Him has always been a heart issue.

Agreed. This is a good paragraph.

If you fantasize about disobeying God's commands, but obey anyway because you don't want to be punished, then your heart is not in the right place.

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.

Throughout the Psalms, it talks about the joy and the delight of obeying God's law and that is the proper attitude toward obedience to God where it is an expression of our love and of our we have faith in Him about how we should live. Our attitude should not be that would rather not obey God

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.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think perhaps we are not understanding one another, or maybe it's a matter of not having experience with what is being suggested? Maybe I don't explain well either.

I'm not suggesting that we try to game the system, though I recognize the temptation to do so.

Btw, I'm not suggesting that was your intent. But yes, as soon as we begin to talk in that way, at least some people will use the thinking in that way. Perhaps lack of maturity (which is not a sin, we all start somewhere) or poor teaching, or whatever, but some (or many) will, which is why I went there to caution against it, I suppose. Even starting out well, one can be led to become LESS mature if one is a bit lazy spiritually, by having things put forth before them in terms like this. But I did not mean to imply that that was your intent. My apologies.

It is a necessary part of understanding what is, and what is not sin that we consider where the line is between the two. I think the line depends on the individual and the circumstances, meaning it will be different every time and I believe this is where I really am promoting flexibility as opposed to the legalism you suggested.

And I think this is where we have a breakdown in communication.

I certainly agree that we need to know where sin begins. 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, and in a non-objectifying, loving way. 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. Those who are not in a position to fulfill their desire, which is pretty much everyone else, or even married persons in an objectifying sense as Padiske noted, will cross over into sin as soon as they begin engaging the thoughts.

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).

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? Are they becoming more like Christ? Are they further infecting themselves with the sickness of the world? What is the effect on their mind, their capacity to love God and others? Are they strengthening enslavement to base passions? (Passions having a particular meaning to the Orthodox and not meaning simply a strong or loving feeling, but rather a perverted - in the sense of having been changed - desire.)

It's not about crime and punishment for us, which I see as legalism. Rather, it is about becoming a whole, healed person in the likeness of Christ who is capable of giving and receiving love with both God and other persons.

As someone suggested over on the other thread where this question originally appeared, we can't become asexual through sheer will power and that we are designed to care about and think about sex. Even if it is only in terms of reproduction (as opposed to pleasure for the sake of pleasure) there will be some thoughts about sex. In other words, it comes across as unrealistic to suggest that any thoughts about sex, period, must be sinful. I don't think you are suggesting this, but I also think we don't have clarity on this issue of "sex thoughts" in general.

No, certainly I am not saying that all thoughts about sex are sinful. Sex was introduced by God and is blessed within marriage, a means of intimacy as well as the path through which children enter the world. Sex can and should be blessed. It is not inherently dirty or sinful, though we certainly have MANY temptations these days to warp it into that.

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.

If it is true that not any and all thoughts of sex are wrong, then where is the line drawn between the two? I would like to suggest that, in principle, the line will always be relative to the individual's personal motives. This is where careful self-examination as to where the line may happen to be, at any given moment, is critical.

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.

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. 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 believe this part of your post is consistent with what I've shared, except for one small difference. I think that, even if the act isn't committed, the person can still be guilty, based on motive. This is why, in my previous post, I gave the example of a person who wants to fornitcate, but only refrains from doing so because they fear being caught. What's happening in their heart is more important to God than what they actually do.

Then I haven't been clear, because I agree that a person can sin without the physical act.

The opposite can also be true, where a person fantasizes about fornication and, even if they could get away with it (meaning no consequences) they still would not do it, based on their personal integrity. Notice I said that it can be true and not that it always will be. The key is motivation, and only God and the individual can really know if they crossed the line from "thoughts about sex are not wrong in themselves" to "if I could I would" and even then many of us would probably be in denial over it.

I think this goes into more rabbit-trails than I can address right now.

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. They may show restraint by not fornicating, but they still did so in the mind, so it is still sin, and they still damage their person and their growth in Christ through their fantasizing.

But this mostly relates to fleeting encounters and this is where I feel your concern is probably most valid in that the argument could easily become justification for going around fantasizing about every person we see. In general I think it is a bad idea for people to include real people in whatever "thoughts about sex" they may have (especially when it's people they actually know in real life), precisely because, as you've suggested, temptation can easily become a slippery slope.

Well, including real people in fantasy is worse, I agree.

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?

I have found the Freudian-based models that claim that such mental activity somehow diverts energy from actually committing the acts to be flawed. Rather, I would say (and this is strongly taught by our Church) that constantly feeding secret desires only keeps them alive and strengthens desire to act on them. I realize sexual thoughts are probably the most controversial of the possible topics here, but they work like any other desire.

This is why Paul advised people to marry.