Masturbation

[Johnnz]

Lust is when we intentionally want to the extent of intending to do something that is clearly wrong, given the opportunity. It must have the moral content of choice before something can be deemed to be wrong. Involuntary, unwilled reactions are not lust.

John
NZ

 

[CShephard53]

Wait a minute, what difference does it make what our definitions are of a particular biblical term? A dictionary of current english is the last place a Christian should look for the meaning of such a frought word as "lust".
How the word was used and intended when it was written in the original greek 2000 years ago ought to be the concern

Epistemaniac is doing exactly what a serious Christian should do when dealing with any biblical term.

He is merely copying and pasting, anyone can do that, and what the biblical term actually is differs with how he has used it.

 

[epistemaniac]

He is merely copying and pasting, anyone can do that, and what the biblical term actually is differs with how he has used it.

sigh you just can't please some people... you asked for the definition or at least "a" definition of lust... you placed no parameters on where the definition could come from... you just asked

Ken, what is lust?

so if you specifically do not want to hear what commentators, dictionary's or lexicons say, which is rather absurd in my opinion, since these are the places we typically go for definitions isn’t it?!?!?! LOL ... but anyway... just say so to begin with... and I would not have gone to the trouble to hunt down the definitions for you…. since you apparently just want me to give my definition so you can disagree in the first place, and then just give your definition...... am I right…?

but since I did go to the trouble... what is it specifically that you disagree with?

But don’t despise commentators in favor of hearing yourself talk…. Remember that a commentator’s or other author’s definition of “lust” has to be at least as informed and valid as yours… right?

"In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for these great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt." (Spurgeon, Commenting on Commentaries)

blessings,
ken

 

[epistemaniac]

He is merely copying and pasting, anyone can do that, and what the biblical term actually is differs with how he has used it.

come to think of it, anyone can also just write out their own opinions on any given subject, the forums are flooded with opinions.... regardless if they have any real knowledge or expertise in that area of discussion or not. Or, in other words, just because a person takes the time to write out their own opinions, it does not follow that this will necessarily be a good thing, as they may be woefully uninformed and ignorant about the subject at hand. They may not necessarily be so, but then again, they may be, so copying and pasting may be a good thing when an opinion may be a bad thing, especially if the cutting and pasting comes from persons knowledgeable in the subject at hand, and in this case, all the excerpts were from persons who were indeed educated and informed in the area of discussion, regardless of whether or not one agrees with them or not. So just because anyone can copy and paste, its also true to say that "anyone can just write out their own opinions" as well....

blessings,
ken

 

[Kencj]

Oh durnit, is this turning into a hissy fight between a couple people?

Epistemaniac can be faulted first for using very outdated reference works (most of the ones available online are ancient -the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, for example, is from 1915) and second for relying more on commentaries than on just how the word is used in the Bible. But I don't see why his personal definition of “lust” should matter.

The original term that seems to have started this is discussion Jesus' use of the verb EPITHUMEO in Matt 5:28 “But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust (EPITHUMEO) for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” ISV

Here are some other examples of the word from the NT:

1 Peter 1:12 Even angels long (EPITHUMEO) to look into these things.

1Ti 3:1
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires (EPITHUMEO)

Mattt 13:17
For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired (EPITHUMEO) to see what you see, and did not see and to hear what you hear, and did not hear.

Ac 20:33
I have coveted (EPITHUMEO) no one's silver or gold or clothes.

Obviously the word has nothing inherent to do with sex.

Jesus use of it in Matthew comes straight from Deut 5:21 and Exodus 20:17, which says (in the Septuagint):

"You shall not covet (EPITHUMEO) your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

The use of “lust” to refer to sex primarily is not the way the term is used in the Bible at all -and it shouldn’t be used in that way in our interpretation of it. Unfortunately modern cultural use sees it almost entirely as about sex, rather than about greed, which is more its correct meaning. (Notice that "wife" is just another in the list of the neighbor's possessions). This explains, it seems to me, why Christians too often obsess about sex and ignore greed today.

I hope that’s helpful.

 

[andreha]

Oh durnit, is this turning into a hissy fight between a couple people?

Epistemaniac can be faulted first for using very outdated reference works (most of the ones available online are ancient -the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, for example, is from 1915) and second for relying more on commentaries than on just how the word is used in the Bible. But I don't see why his personal definition of “lust” should matter.

The original term that seems to have started this is discussion Jesus' use of the verb EPITHUMEO in Matt 5:28 “But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust (EPITHUMEO) for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” ISV

Here are some other examples of the word from the NT:

1 Peter 1:12 Even angels long (EPITHUMEO) to look into these things.

1Ti 3:1
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires (EPITHUMEO)

Mattt 13:17
For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired (EPITHUMEO) to see what you see, and did not see and to hear what you hear, and did not hear.

Ac 20:33
I have coveted (EPITHUMEO) no one's silver or gold or clothes.

Obviously the word has nothing inherent to do with sex.

Jesus use of it in Matthew comes straight from Deut 5:21 and Exodus 20:17, which says (in the Septuagint):

"You shall not covet (EPITHUMEO) your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

The use of “lust” to refer to sex primarily is not the way the term is used in the Bible at all -and it shouldn’t be used in that way in our interpretation of it. Unfortunately modern cultural use sees it almost entirely as about sex, rather than about greed, which is more its correct meaning. This explains, it seems to me, why Christians too often obsess about sex and ignore greed today.

I hope that’s helpful.

Insigthful - reps 4 that.

 

[Johnnz]

Lexicons aren't completely helpful in understanding that verse in Matthew. The Greek grammatical construction implies actual intent.

John
NZ

 

[CShephard53]

sigh you just can't please some people... you asked for the definition or at least "a" definition of lust... you placed no parameters on where the definition could come from... you just asked

This is CHRISTIAN philosophy and ethics. Should I need to?

so if you specifically do not want to hear what commentators, dictionary's or lexicons say, which is rather absurd in my opinion, since these are the places we typically go for definitions isn’t it?!?!?! LOL ... but anyway... just say so to begin with... and I would not have gone to the trouble to hunt down the definitions for you…. since you apparently just want me to give my definition so you can disagree in the first place, and then just give your definition...... am I right…?

No, not really. If I wanted a copy/paste post, I would have specifically asked for it: what do commentators take from Matthe 5's definition of lust? I want to know how you think you're using the word.

but since I did go to the trouble... what is it specifically that you disagree with?

The fact that you copy/pasted entire segments of text rather than putting yourself in my shoes and see why I'm asking what lust is.

But don’t despise commentators in favor of hearing yourself talk….

I don't care about what I have to say, not right now, and that was not why I asked you what lust is. I asked because I want to see if your definition is actually congruent with what the Bible defines as lust.

Remember that a commentator’s or other author’s definition of “lust” has to be at least as informed and valid as yours… right?

I don't care about what you copy pasted, I want YOUR definition.

"

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for these great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt." (Spurgeon, Commenting on Commentaries)

blessings,
ken

I did not ask what you can copy/paste. I asked for how you're using the word.

 

[CShephard53]

come to think of it, anyone can also just write out their own opinions on any given subject, the forums are flooded with opinions.... regardless if they have any real knowledge or expertise in that area of discussion or not.

No kidding. How do you know I haven't been to Bible college, or studied Greek, or been mentored by men much older than myself with a background in such things? You don't. So, rather than questioning someone's opinion, why don't you answer my question so we can continue with logical discourse?

Or, in other words, just because a person takes the time to write out their own opinions, it does not follow that this will necessarily be a good thing, as they may be woefully uninformed and ignorant about the subject at hand. They may not necessarily be so, but then again, they may be, so copying and pasting may be a good thing when an opinion may be a bad thing, especially if the cutting and pasting comes from persons knowledgeable in the subject at hand, and in this case, all the excerpts were from persons who were indeed educated and informed in the area of discussion, regardless of whether or not one agrees with them or not.

Address the issue, not me.

So just because anyone can copy and paste, its also true to say that "anyone can just write out their own opinions" as well....

blessings,
ken

Yes, exactly. So, why don't you post what you mean with your usage of the word 'lust' when you give the following opinion:

even if there were health benefits, if the bible forbids it in principle, it is still wrong... so he ends do not justify the means...

secondly, we have to always know what the motivation and the worldview of the people doing the research is... as is sometimes the case with homosexuality, many of the researchers who try to justify homosexualuty for whatever reason, do so because they themselves are homosexuals and (sometimes desperately) want to find ways to justify the behavior as being a legitimate alternative lifestyle because it is genetic or whatever.... so their methodology is suspect form the beginning... so too I wonder if those who are claiming such benefits are just themselves people who are seeking to justify the behavior.

thirdly even if there were health benefits, God would have the wisdom to have us refrain from the practice if He knew that whatever health benefits that there were (granting for the moment that the research is valid and that there are in fact benefits), these benefits do not outweigh the psychological and spiritual harm that comes from masturbating, as it cheapens the sex act, as sexual intercourse was designed by God to be between a husband and a wife, and masturbation most often involves fantasizing about a person that is not one's spouse. This of course is in violation of Matthew 5:27 - 29 (ESV) 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell."
It seems that it is also wrong in that masturbation involves fantasizing about engaging in sexual activity with a specific person without that person's permission. So it seems to violate that person's rights in some way as well, as one would expect that many men and women would object to the knowledge that a person was masturbating while fantasizing about them, and would thus feel defiled.

So, let me ask you again: what is lust? How are you using the word in the above argument?

 

[CShephard53]

Oh durnit, is this turning into a hissy fight between a couple people?

Epistemaniac can be faulted first for using very outdated reference works (most of the ones available online are ancient -the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, for example, is from 1915) and second for relying more on commentaries than on just how the word is used in the Bible. But I don't see why his personal definition of “lust” should matter.

Hissy fit? I don't get involved in those, I have very specific boundaries for what I respond to.

 

[Kencj]

I'd like to mention something else I’d never noticed about Matthew 5:28 now that I look more closely at the greek.

There seems to be a clear statement of intent in the action of "looking". It's PROS TO EPITHUMESAI, which doesn't look at all like some kind of spontaneous unintended sexual interest or arousal, but more literally “TOWARD or TO THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ONE’S SELF DESIRE” –EPITHUMESAI, looks like the middle voice. That would mean not so much desire directed at another, but desire in reference to ones’ self.

It’s almost more a condemnation of something like porn than of simple “desire” or even covetousness. Perhaps someone better at Greek than I am could clarify.


I’d always read that Jesus was referring to a Pharisaic teaching that what happened outside was under the Law but what one imagined was not “covered” -therefore as long as one just fantasized something, anything goes. And Jesus was saying that that wasn’t the case, what goes on in your heart is seen by God just as much as what goes on externally, so you need to pay attention to it.

 

[dayhiker]

kencj .. your comments are what I came to believe when I studied Mat.5 and lust. Its interesting to me that when I studied this a few years back I didn't know wnyone else that was saying this, now I read it fairly often.

 

[epistemaniac]

I did not ask what you can copy/paste. I asked for how you're using the word.

no, you said

Ken, what is lust?

blessings,
ken

 

[epistemaniac]

Lexicons aren't completely helpful in understanding that verse in Matthew. The Greek grammatical construction implies actual intent.

John
NZ

that is why I included commentaries so that the word could be considered in it's context.... although to say that lexicons aren't helpful in understanding what a word means is a bit of an overstatement....

blessings,
ken

 

[epistemaniac]

This is CHRISTIAN philosophy and ethics. Should I need to?

what in the world does that have to do with your asking me

what is the definition of lust?

??????? I fail to see what the location of our discussion in the forums has do with how my response must be framed to you....

No, not really. If I wanted a copy/paste post, I would have specifically asked for it: what do commentators take from Matthe 5's definition of lust? I want to know how you think you're using the word.

you got what you specifically asked for.... you originally said nothing about where, specifically, you wanted the information. How in the world am I supposed to read all these parameters and specifics from one little line that said "what is the definition of lust?"...? Having already responded to a few threads regarding this subject, you can look at the comments from the commentators and the lexicons and see how I was understanding the word's use in matt. 5.

The fact that you copy/pasted entire segments of text rather than putting yourself in my shoes and see why I'm asking what lust is.

Putting myself into your shoes..!!!?!?!? What the.... all you asked me was one simple question my friend.... how am I supposed to know all that you are thinking or who you are based on this one question?!?!? And since I do not know who you are or what you are thinking based on this one simple question, there is absolutely no way I can "put myself into your shoes" when I answer your question.

I don't care about what I have to say, not right now, and that was not why I asked you what lust is. I asked because I want to see if your definition is actually congruent with what the Bible defines as lust.

Now I am really confused. If you don't care about what you have to say, then why the discussion?

And like I said, you asked me my definition for the word so that you could see if it matched your definition, or, in other words, how your definition is the "biblical definition", and how far off my definition is from your definition... cough... errr the real "biblical definition" ...... I know bait when I see it lol.... In any case, I don't mind seeing what your view is as opposed to mine. I do dislike what seems to me to be disingenuous questions. if you do honestly just want to know what my definition of lust is so as to store it away with other precious bits of wisdom and knowledge (lol ) then I beg your forgiveness for my presumption. But if you want to debate the merits of your definition versus mine, then, please, just say so.

I don't care about what you copy pasted, I want YOUR definition.

no, you just want a format from which to offer your definition of what lust is. So why not just say you disagree with my earlier post, and why specifically, instead of beating around the bush by asking for my definition of lust? Surely you could understand how I understood the term simply by reading my earlier response.

As to what my specific definition is.... why is that so important to you? I am no one special. I have a degree in Biblical Counseling with a double minor in Systematic Theology and Apologetics, but I am no scholar. Surely a scholar's perspective on this issue means more than mine. At any rate, I am quite happy to go to authorities, after all, the Holy Spirit has given teachers to the church for a reason and we ought to avail ourselves of them, men who have mastered the Greek language such that they are asked to write commentaries and dictionaries, so it is these that i go to in order to get my definitions. Have you written a commentary? A dictionary? A Lexicon? (neither have I so don't feel bad) Why does where I get my definition seem to bother you so much? I think my earlier quotation from Craig Blomberg (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen, Scotland; M.A., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, B.A., Augustana College (Summa Cum Laude) from the highly respected New American Commentary series says it well in regard to Matthew's use of the term:

Either way, the present tense participle blepōn refers to one who continues to look rather than just casting a passing glance, and in either case the mere viewing or mental imagining of a naked body is not under consideration. Instead Jesus is condemning lustful thoughts and actions— those involving an actual desire (the most literal translation of the verb epithyme&#333 to have sexual relations with someone other than one’s spouse. Yet despite the danger of overapplying this verse, an even greater danger is that of underapplying it.

and Lenki (who was a distinguished Lutheran scholar and commentator, studied for the ministry at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Columbus, Ohio. Upon earning his Doctor of Divinity, he became Dean of the seminary. He was a former professor at Capital Seminary -- now Trinity Lutheran Seminary -- in Columbus, Ohio, where he taught in the fields of exegesis, dogmatics, and homiletics, and who's commentary series is likewise well respected.) who said

“It ought to be understood that what is thus said of a man (π[FONT=&quot]ᾶ[/FONT]ς [FONT=&quot]ὁ[/FONT], masculine) is equally true of a woman. Likewise, "every man" is general and cannot be restricted to married men; and γυνα[FONT=&quot]ῖ[/FONT]κα cannot refer only to a married woman who belongs to another man. A bachelor's lustful look upon a maid is certainly as adulterous as the lustful look of a married man upon another man's wife.

so in other words, if you just simply must have it in my own words, looking lustfully on another woman is to look on her in a way that, in one's own heart, one is desiring her sexually when she is not your wife... its not just a casual glance, its looking longingly, purposefully and intently at a woman, (or of course, a woman looking in the same way at a man) imagining her having sex with you, imagining what she might look like naked, etc. It is to covet, and cultivate an evil desire to possess what is not yours under God.

blessings,
ken

 

[Kencj]

kencj .. your comments are what I came to believe when I studied Mat.5 and lust. Its interesting to me that when I studied this a few years back I didn't know wnyone else that was saying this, now I read it fairly often.

Good to know! Thanks.

 

[The Gregorian]

My 2 centavos:

Whether or not masturbation is a sin, we all agree that lusting after someone who is not yours is a sin... whether you touch with such a thought or not. Even fantasizing about A: cheating on your wife (or husband), or B: seducing someone else's wife (or husband) or C: anything illegal... is wrong.

Even without the bible, most would easily agree on this.

So, masturbation while fantasizing about the above would be wrong because the fantasy itself is wrong to begin with. If you cannot touch without thinking immoral thoughts, then in this case, masturbation is wrong.

However, what if one is married? Can one not fantasize about one's wife (or husband)? Would that be considered immoral? Is it wrong for an unmarried person to fantasize about having a loving marriage mate?

This is a much more difficult question.

For example, it's possible that a married person's masturbation could interfere with their ability to provide physical affection for their real mate... preferring their fantasies over the real thing. Of course, this would be wrong... but what if it wasn't the case?

Likewise, for the unmarried person, it's possible that their fantasies could become unrealistic. Even if they don't lust after a specific person that is not theirs... unrealistic fantasies could impair their ability to find a real mate to which they could show real affection. But, what if that isn't the case?

One could point to Onan's story... although not everyone sees the same thing here, it certainly doesn't apply to women.

So, is it wrong? It certainly CAN be. And, it's very often attached to things, which are wrong. But I'm not convinced the act is inherently wrong in all circumstances.

 

[Kencj]

Well, keep in mind, as has been mentioned before, that the story of Onan has nothing to do with masturbation.

What was condemnable was that Onan was pretending to be performing his duty to his late brother of providing his widow a child, and was practicing coitus interuptus instead. The reason was pretty clearly greed; to retain the estate he'd inherited from his brother, which he'd have to return if the widow produced a child.

The story is actually similar to that of Ananias and Saphira in Acts, who were similarly struck dead when they too pretended to be generous.

"Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his sperm on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. "

Historically the story was never applied to masturbation until the appearance of that medical tract i mentioned earlier, "Onania or the Heinous Sin of Onanism" in 1712, according to Laquer's book Solitary Sex.

 

[CShephard53]

no, you said



blessings,
ken

Did you bother reading what I quoted when I asked that?

you got what you specifically asked for.... you originally said nothing about where, specifically, you wanted the information. How in the world am I supposed to read all these parameters and specifics from one little line that said "what is the definition of lust?"...? Having already responded to a few threads regarding this subject, you can look at the comments from the commentators and the lexicons and see how I was understanding the word's use in matt. 5.

Putting myself into your shoes..!!!?!?!? What the.... all you asked me was one simple question my friend.... how am I supposed to know all that you are thinking or who you are based on this one question?!?!? And since I do not know who you are or what you are thinking based on this one simple question, there is absolutely no way I can "put myself into your shoes" when I answer your question.

I didn't get what I asked for. I was talking to you, not the scholars who wrote what you posted. Why would I ask YOU what lust is if I want a bunch of lexicon material? Why not just ask 'what do the lexicons say' or 'what is the biblical meaning of this word'?

Now I am really confused. If you don't care about what you have to say, then why the discussion?

Because I want to hear from you, not a bunch of stuff you copy/pasted from the internet.

And like I said, you asked me my definition for the word so that you could see if it matched your definition, or, in other words, how your definition is the "biblical definition", and how far off my definition is from your definition... cough... errr the real "biblical definition" ...... I know bait when I see it lol....

If I was baiting you, I'd be far more subtle about it. Keep from making this personal, will you? This forum has enough of that going on.

In any case, I don't mind seeing what your view is as opposed to mine. I do dislike what seems to me to be disingenuous questions. if you do honestly just want to know what my definition of lust is so as to store it away with other precious bits of wisdom and knowledge (lol ) then I beg your forgiveness for my presumption. But if you want to debate the merits of your definition versus mine, then, please, just say so.

Or you could just give it, rather than overanalyzing my post.

no, you just want a format from which to offer your definition of what lust is.

Why? I've already given it... I've better things to do than repeat myself in some extended, drawn out, and ultimately boring and time wasting fashion.

So why not just say you disagree with my earlier post, and why specifically, instead of beating around the bush by asking for my definition of lust? Surely you could understand how I understood the term simply by reading my earlier response.

I could, but then I'd be making assumptions. And you know what they say about assumptions where I'm at right now? They make a *insert beginning sylable of 'assumption'* out of you and me. I'd hate to put words in your mouth and look stupid, in other words.

As to what my specific definition is.... why is that so important to you? I am no one special. I have a degree in Biblical Counseling with a double minor in Systematic Theology and Apologetics, but I am no scholar. Surely a scholar's perspective on this issue means more than mine. At any rate, I am quite happy to go to authorities, after all, the Holy Spirit has given teachers to the church for a reason and we ought to avail ourselves of them, men who have mastered the Greek language such that they are asked to write commentaries and dictionaries, so it is these that i go to in order to get my definitions. Have you written a commentary? A dictionary? A Lexicon? (neither have I so don't feel bad) Why does where I get my definition seem to bother you so much? I think my earlier quotation from Craig Blomberg (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen, Scotland; M.A., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, B.A., Augustana College (Summa Cum Laude) from the highly respected New American Commentary series says it well in regard to Matthew's use of the term:

and Lenki (who was a distinguished Lutheran scholar and commentator, studied for the ministry at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Columbus, Ohio. Upon earning his Doctor of Divinity, he became Dean of the seminary. He was a former professor at Capital Seminary -- now Trinity Lutheran Seminary -- in Columbus, Ohio, where he taught in the fields of exegesis, dogmatics, and homiletics, and who's commentary series is likewise well respected.)

I don't much care what they have to say either. I'm already quite sure of what lust is, biblically. Like I said, I want to know what you think it means. Anyone can copy paste a bunch of literature and summarize it, and anyone can simply give their opinion. I want more than the mundane. I'm sick of the mundane. Mundane is boring. Make life interesting by making an argument for why you have your opinion, analyze things. Seriously, I'm sick of shallow posts.

who said so in other words, if you just simply must have it in my own words, looking lustfully on another woman is to look on her in a way that, in one's own heart, one is desiring her sexually when she is not your wife... its not just a casual glance, its looking longingly, purposefully and intently at a woman, (or of course, a woman looking in the same way at a man) imagining her having sex with you, imagining what she might look like naked, etc. It is to covet, and cultivate an evil desire to possess what is not yours under God.

So, how exactly does coveting automatically involve imagining things?

 

[CShephard53]

My 2 centavos:

Whether or not masturbation is a sin, we all agree that lusting after someone who is not yours is a sin... whether you touch with such a thought or not. Even fantasizing about A: cheating on your wife (or husband), or B: seducing someone else's wife (or husband) or C: anything illegal... is wrong.

Even without the bible, most would easily agree on this.

So, masturbation while fantasizing about the above would be wrong because the fantasy itself is wrong to begin with. If you cannot touch without thinking immoral thoughts, then in this case, masturbation is wrong.

However, what if one is married? Can one not fantasize about one's wife (or husband)? Would that be considered immoral? Is it wrong for an unmarried person to fantasize about having a loving marriage mate?

This is a much more difficult question.

For example, it's possible that a married person's masturbation could interfere with their ability to provide physical affection for their real mate... preferring their fantasies over the real thing. Of course, this would be wrong... but what if it wasn't the case?

Likewise, for the unmarried person, it's possible that their fantasies could become unrealistic. Even if they don't lust after a specific person that is not theirs... unrealistic fantasies could impair their ability to find a real mate to which they could show real affection. But, what if that isn't the case?

One could point to Onan's story... although not everyone sees the same thing here, it certainly doesn't apply to women.

So, is it wrong? It certainly CAN be. And, it's very often attached to things, which are wrong. But I'm not convinced the act is inherently wrong in all circumstances.

Isn't the entire point of a fantasy that you're not going to actually do it? That is, it's fictional? If it's fictional, why is it wrong? Would me playing Star Wars video games that fictionally kill people be wrong too? How about when I read a fictional book and imagine one character slicing off the arm of the other, is that wrong?

In other words, how is fantasy immoral?