Masturbation

[Johnnz]

Here is an extract from a highly regarded book on Christian Ethics

My reference is Kingdom Ethics By Stassen & Gushee. They write "This single sentence is among the most damagingly misunderstood in the entire scriptural record. Much hinges on a proper translation of the key phrase pros to epithymesai. Most modem translations miss the critical dimension of intent that is implicit here. For example, the NRSV reads "everyone who looks at a woman with lust" compare the NIV - "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully." The KJV actually captures the nuance more adequately: "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her." Donald Hagner has it just about right: "everyone who looks at a woman with the purpose of lusting after her" (Matthew 1-13, 119). Guelich translates the phrase "in order to desire having her (sexually)," emphasizing the aspect of possession of what belongs to another (Sermon on the Mount, 193-94).

This small matter of exegesis and translation is no small matter at all. The more common and less accurate translation has contributed greatly to an idealistic/unrealistic rendering of Jesus' teaching. If Jesus is saying that the first spark of attraction one has to another person is the equivalent of the act of adultery, then surely the average adult---especially the average male-has committed many such acts. If so, the teaching of Jesus is intended simply to shame us or to show us how far we are from the perfection he demands.

However, this is not the nature of Jesus' teaching. If we read his teaching instead as concrete direction concerning how to do God's will and thus enjoy kingdom existence here and now, then he must mean something like what the Greek text actually seems to say. Jesus is identifying an act of human will (or a pattern of human wilfulness) which leads us in the direction of violating God's will and thus ensnaring ourselves in misery.

An accurate description of this process or pattern of behaviour would begin with the acknowledgment that precisely because we are embodied sexual selves, sexual attraction is an inescapable dimension of human existence. We are drawn mysteriously to the physical beauty and form of others, certain others in particular. When we encounter people who for whatever reason of face, shape or form are particularly appealing to us, we frequently experience a momentary frisson of excitement, a spark of attraction. This appears to be part of the created order and should not be identified as sinful [FONT=&quot](d. [/FONT]Allison, Sermon on the Mount, 73-74). (It should also be noted that we are sometimes drawn to the inner beauty of others; a different path that can have the same result.)

John
NZ

 

[The Gregorian]

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?

There's a difference between watching a movie about killing people and fantasizing about killing people. Playing a video game, or even telling a fictional story about killing someone is different than -wanting- to kill someone.

I've played more than my share of video games with some sort of PVP, but the concept of intentionally harming a living person repulses me. That's the difference between the difference between a relatively "healthy" fantasy (even when purely fiction), and a destructive fantasy (such as fantasizing about cheating on your wife). If you fantasize about committing such immorality, you've already done so in your heart. We learn that from David. Similarly, imagine you're married. Even if your wife doesn't cheat on you, imagine you find out that she no longer fantasizes about you, but fantasizes about one of your friends instead. Even if she doesn't take action, if you knew she wishes she could cheat on you if only she could get away with it... Would you consider that a healthy/loving attitude?

On the other hand, if your wife admitted to fantasizing about -you-, would you be equally offended?

Even unfulfilled fantasy can affect a marriage.

 

[Kencj]

Here is an extract from a highly regarded book on Christian Ethics

My reference is Kingdom Ethics By Stassen & Gushee. They write "This single sentence is among the most damagingly misunderstood in the entire scriptural record. Much hinges on a proper translation of the key phrase pros to epithymesai. Most modem translations miss the critical dimension of intent that is implicit here. For example, the NRSV reads "everyone who looks at a woman with lust" compare the NIV - "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully." The KJV actually captures the nuance more adequately: "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her." Donald Hagner has it just about right: "everyone who looks at a woman with the purpose of lusting after her" (Matthew 1-13, 119). Guelich translates the phrase "in order to desire having her (sexually)," emphasizing the aspect of possession of what belongs to another (Sermon on the Mount, 193-94).

This small matter of exegesis and translation is no small matter at all. ...

John
NZ

Hey, John, thanks for pointing that out! It's very helpful.

It should also point out why any Christian who takes their religion seriously needs to learn biblical greek -I only took a year of it and it's been absolutely invaluable. I drew the same conclusions as the commentator simply by looking at the text. The really sad thing is it also points out how even the best translations sometimes miss the mark, especially with crucual verses like this. I'm astounded by how often that seems to happen.

The ISV makes a move forward by saying "stare at", as though the person is making an intentional effort, though it doesn't make it clear that lust is the INTENTION of the looking, as your commentators say.

 

[CShephard53]

There's a difference between watching a movie about killing people and fantasizing about killing people. Playing a video game, or even telling a fictional story about killing someone is different than -wanting- to kill someone.

Pray tell, what is this difference?

I've played more than my share of video games with some sort of PVP, but the concept of intentionally harming a living person repulses me. That's the difference between the difference between a relatively "healthy" fantasy (even when purely fiction), and a destructive fantasy (such as fantasizing about cheating on your wife). If you fantasize about committing such immorality, you've already done so in your heart. We learn that from David.

Problem: David actually carried out the act, and not only carried it out, but tried to cover it up. David had intent, not simple fantasy.

Similarly, imagine you're married. Even if your wife doesn't cheat on you, imagine you find out that she no longer fantasizes about you, but fantasizes about one of your friends instead. Even if she doesn't take action, if you knew she wishes she could cheat on you if only she could get away with it... Would you consider that a healthy/loving attitude?

That's not simple fantasy. That's intent. You're blurring the line between the two.

On the other hand, if your wife admitted to fantasizing about -you-, would you be equally offended?

Even unfulfilled fantasy can affect a marriage.

Can, if it goes further than mere fantasy.

 

[plmarquette]

marriage usually ends the "hands on requirement"

Some times one takes a matter in hand, rather than ....
acquiring a "STD", or
going to a strip joint, bar, or other such place...
because in milatary, out of town on
assignment, in jail....
unable to avail oneself of a proper / normal outlet of sexual tension

If you can occupy your mind....good movie, project, hobby, ball game, taking thoughts captive....can win on a day to day basis over the onslaught of temptations,
torments, and trials....

 

[Kencj]

The question of fantasy brings up something I've always wondered about; I was friends with a married couple who were considered "pillars of the church". The woman mentioned to me almost in passing that she was in love with the pastor and fantasized having sex with him whenever she was having sex with her husband. I was shocked and looked at her husband, who was sitting next to her, smiling. "I'm enjoying it!" he said. "I'm getting it way more often than I was before." They seemed quite content with this arrangement. It completely freaked me out, however.

 

[Johnnz]

Imagery is part of normal human sexuality. While there could be some issues re sexual fantasies with the pastor that need not be so. Many couples use imagery of some sort, some even using porn. Where as that's not for me, some couples may be OK with it. Nevertheless, utilising an image of an unknown person vs a known one does not make the latter intrinsically wrong.

John
NZ

 

[CShephard53]

The question of fantasy brings up something I've always wondered about; I was friends with a married couple who were considered "pillars of the church". The woman mentioned to me almost in passing that she was in love with the pastor and fantasized having sex with him whenever she was having sex with her husband. I was shocked and looked at her husband, who was sitting next to her, smiling. "I'm enjoying it!" he said. "I'm getting it way more often than I was before." They seemed quite content with this arrangement. It completely freaked me out, however.

Er... might they have been having... er... other problems of a physical nature?

 

[Kencj]

Er... might they have been having... er... other problems of a physical nature?

Didn't seem to be. She preferred seeing her husband as a sexual "stand in" for the pastor, and he was quite willing and able to oblige, so the "problem", it seems to me, was psychological rather than physiological.

But wouldn't her sexual infatuation with the pastor have been morally wrong in itself? I'm trying to figure out why I found it so appalling.

I'm sorry, I'm straying way off the masturbation topic. This is more about the question of the morality of sexual fantasy.

 

[CShephard53]

Didn't seem to be. She preferred seeing her husband as a sexual "stand in" for the pastor, and he was quite willing and able to oblige, so the "problem", it seems to me, was psychological rather than physiological.

But wouldn't her sexual infatuation with the pastor have been morally wrong in itself? I'm trying to figure out why I found it so appalling.

I'm sorry, I'm straying way off the masturbation topic. This is more about the question of the morality of sexual fantasy.

...which is involved in masturbation. Many people role play during sex, so I doubt this is much different...

 

[epistemaniac]

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


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'?

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


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.


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

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.


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.


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.


So, how exactly does coveting automatically involve imagining things?

If you are already "quite sure of what lust is, biblically", then why ask me what it is? As I said, I know baiting when I see it. All you really wanted to do, from the beginning, was to correct me where ever I differ from your own views. That’s fine, but why not just be honest about it?

Further, nothing I copy and pasted was from the internet. If the information would have been from the internet, I would have been more than glad to just furnish the links. Now who is doing the assuming?

At any rate, I have already made an argument for my opinion by researching the issue, reading numerous commentaries, reading numerous articles in dictionaries and lexicons. I provided those (if you chose not to read them that is your issue not mine) for you so that you would know why I posted my initial response in this thread so as to how I arrived at my understanding of the issue. In any case, I don't read minds, I don’t know the thoughts and intentions of your heart, and so the next time you simply and only you ask for a definition, and it must be pointed out you did not ask for my definition of the word, you asked for the definition of the word lust, look back again at your own words, then please don’t complain when you get exactly what you asked for. Anyways, in the future (at least in future discussions with me) I would deeply appreciate it if you would be more specific when you ask a question since you seem to be so particular about these issues, by outlining all the exact parameters as to where and from whom you will accept information from, and where you will not, so that when an answer is provided for you I can know ahead of time that it will "be up to snuff" enough for you. As it is, I answered your question as it was asked, quite directly, and all you have done since is complain about it.

And by saying this, I am not making things personal at all. You asked me the definition of a word, while all the while, knowing full well and being convinced in your mind that you are already "quite sure of what lust is, biblically". So why ask me a question you already knew the answer to begin with? You didn't really want what you asked for, which was simply an answer to your question: "what is the definition of lust?". What you really wanted is to try and show me why my understanding of the word is flawed when I responded to the earlier post in this thread, as your subsequent posts have proven. And of course that is fine. This is a public forum and I expect to have people disagree with me and for me to disagree with them. If you really want to discuss the issue with me, don't be coy by asking me for "the" definition when what you really want to do is challenge my understanding of the word. Just be up front about what you really want to do, is all I am asking you for. That (feeling as if you were trying to 'set me up" or bait me from the outset, which is in the end exactly what you did) is probably the biggest reason I have been slightly less than gracious during this conversation.

There is no reason for you to worry about making an *** out of you or me by putting words into my mouth. If you want to know why I believe what I believe about the definition of the word "lust" you have ample information to consult. Go to that information, interact with it, critique it according to your views if you like, but don't pretend the information isn't there.

I would just add that it is neither my job nor my responsibility to entertain you. If you are tired of the mundane, that is really an issue you will have to come to terms with on your own, it’s simply not my problem, though I do have some suggestions to help you with this: namely to just remember that all around you, the people you speak to on the internet, the people you walk by on the street, are all made in the image of God. While quite simple, this is a very profound way of remembering that all those you interact with everyday are eternal beings made in the image of the loving Lord of all. And all of creation is under the providence of a holy and wise God. There is nothing mundane in all the world because of these things. May I suggest reading some CS Lewis? He may help restore the wonder of the “every day” to you and help you see that there is really nothing mundane about the unspeakable honor it is to be simply living and breathing and enjoying the company of God’s people and seeing the wonder of God’s creation. If you are bored then perhaps the reason is within you, and not without.

Earlier I said, in part:

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

So there is a lot more here than to just focus on coveting as “automatically imagining things”, and frankly your question "how exactly does coveting automatically involve imagining things?" fails to deal with the majority of my words in response to your earlier question. Why skip over all else that was said?
But as far “imagining things” goes, its really impossible not to, if one is coveting what does not belong to one’s self, for as soon as the mind imagines a scenario that has no basis in reality, one is “imagining things”. For instance to think “imagine me sitting behind the wheel of that Porsche” or “that guy’s wife (or daughter) is hot, I wish I had her, just think of the dancing we could do between the sheets” therefore, one is engaged in “imagining things” by simply coveting, desiring, longing after something or someone that belongs to someone else. To covet what someone else has is to suggest that what God has, in His divine wisdom and providence, given you, is somehow deficient in some way, and not good enough for you. So it is an insult to God to covet after persons or things that belong to someone else as if what God has given you is not enough, that you know better than God and what you think you should have…
cont

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[epistemaniac]

This is what the word “covet” means:
“[FONT=&quot]The application of the tenth commandment is determined by the exact meaning of the verb [/FONT]dmj
[FONT=&quot]. At base [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot] means “desire, yearn for, covet, lust after” someone or something, specifically for one’s own use or gratification. The question whether the verb may also suggest action as well as desire, particularly since the other nine commandments appear to command specific actions, has complicated the understanding of the tenth commandment. Herrmann ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Beiträge[/FONT][FONT=&quot], 69–72) and Nielsen (Ten Commandments, 101–5), for example, have taken the view that [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot] means both the desire and the scheming and actions impelled by it, an argument they sustain by reference to such passages as Exod 34:24; Deut 7:25; Josh 7:21; Mic 2:2; and Ps 68:17. Coates (ZAW 52 [1934] 238–39), Stoebe ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Wort und Dienst[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 3:108–15), and Moran (CBQ 29 [1967) 543–48), on the other hand, argue for the more subjective basic definition, on the grounds that there are ample examples of the prohibition in the ANE of such subjective longings and that such a definition better fits all the OT occurrences of [/FONT]dmj[FONT=&quot]Hyatt (Encounter 26 [1965] 204–6), listing parallels in Egyptian literature, suggested an “original form” of the tenth commandment that was an injunction against someone “in a position of authority” opening himself to bribery through “inordinate desire”; so this commandment was connected with the ninth commandment and “the integrity of the judicial system of the desert period.” A. Phillips (Criminal Law, 149–52) goes much farther in the same general direction with his argument that [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot] “desire” is a replacement for an original verb that referred to the seizure of the house (taken in its literal meaning) of the local elder, who would then, by the loss of his status as a property-owner, lose also his authority as a judge. Such a theory is made necessary by Phillips’s assumption (1–2 and passim) that “the Decalogue constituted ancient Israel’s preexilic criminal law code given to her at Sinai.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Both sides in this debate have taken the use in Deut 5:21 of [/FONT]hwa [FONT=&quot] “desire, incline towards, long for, lust over” instead of the second [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot] “desire” of Exod 20:17 as support for their respective cases. The two verbs are however very close in meaning, so close that A. Phillips (Criminal Law, 150) and Childs (426–27) can ssy that the Deuteronomists used [/FONT]hwa [FONT=&quot] to emphasize the subjective nature of [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot], while Stamm (Stamm and Andrew, Ten Commandments, 104) and Nielsen (Ten Commandments, 43) propose that the Deuteronomists were attempting with this change to tone down the objective action implied by [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot], and move the commandment towards what Stamm calls “mental coveting.” The two verbs are much too nearly synonymous, however, to justify the distinctions these scholars have proposed, and in any case, the expansion of the commandment in Exodus repeats [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot] instead of using [/FONT]hwa [FONT=&quot] or any other verb meaning “covet.” In every OT passage in which [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot] leads to actual possession, a second verb is supplied to make that additional meaning clear. If [/FONT]dmj[FONT=&quot]Another possibility is that [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot], as a verb meaning “desire obsessively, covet or lust after for oneself” and describing a mental and emotional process interior to a person’s being, was the deliberate and careful choice of a verb for the commandment that ends the ten words. Just as the first commandment, “You are not to have other gods,” provides the foundation for covenantal relationship, so this tenth commandment, “You are not to desire for yourself…,” describes the foundation for the severance of covenantal relationship. [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot] is by choice a reference to an obsessive covetousness that could be the gateway to the violation of every other principle in the Decalogue. Thus coveting for oneself the gold and silver with which idols are decorated leads to idolatry, the violation of the first commandment. Desiring the “free love” of the fertility cults leads both to the worship of other gods and to sexual irresponsibility, the violation of the first and the seventh commandments (Isa 1:29). Yearning after the possessions of others may lead to stealing, a violation of the eighth commandment (Mic 2:2; Josh 7:21–26, which includes also a violation of the third commandment, since Achan had apparently sworn the oath of Yahweh-war loyalty).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Before Ahab’s obsessive desire for Naboth’s vineyard was satisfied, the ninth and sixth commandments had been broken (1 Kgs 21). Before David’s lust for Bathsheba was sated, the seventh, eight, and sixth commandments were broken (2 Sam 11–12). The coveting merchants of Amos’s day broke the fourth and the eighth commandments in their fever to possess (Amos 8:4–6). The citizens of Judah in Jeremiah’s time, deifying their desires and longing after a material and local security, violated the first, third, sixth, seventh, and ninth commandments, and above all, by making Yahweh’s temple into a fetish, the second commandment as well (Jer 7:1–15). And the son whose determined desire for his own way led him to strike (Exod 21:15) or abuse (Exod 21:17) his father or his mother was guilty of breaking the fifth commandment.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The tenth commandment thus functions as a kind of summary commandment, the violation of which is a first step that can lead to the violation of any one or all the rest of the commandments. As such, it is necessarily all-embracing and descriptive of an attitude rather than a deed. It was perhaps set last in the Decalogue precisely because of this uniquely comprehensive application.[/FONT]
tyb[FONT=&quot] “house,” in accord with this broad application, is used in its collective sense, in reference to the “neighbor’s” entire family and his entire property, as for example in Gen 7:1 or Deut 11:6. LXX reverses the sequence of “house” and “wife” in the text of Exod 20:17, as also does MT in the parallel version of this commandment in Deut 5:21, thus making “house” a more specific term and setting up a descending sequence from a man’s most valuable possession in the OT view, his wife (Prov 31:10–31), to his least valuable ones. This change may be regarded as a later shifting of emphasis within the form of the expanded tenth commandment. In its original form, the commandment must have been deliberately comprehensive, with the reference to the neighbor’s house taking in all that belonged to any fellow member of the covenant community.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The basic form of the tenth commandment thus prohibits an obsessive desire for any property belonging to any other person bound to the covenant with Yahweh. The expansion of the basic form specifies five categories of the most valuable possessions the neighbor could have: wife, male slave, female slave, ox, and ass. Moran (CBQ 29 [1967] 548–52) has reviewed an extensive series of similar lists from Ugaritic legal texts and established a fairly consistent formula for the listing of an owner’s total property (“ ‘house and field’ + specifications [buildings, various forms of cultivation, personnel, livestock] + generic formula, ‘everything else belonging to him’ &#8221. One of the texts Moran lists (550–51) is an almost word-for-word parallel (cf. Nougayrol, Palais Royal 3:111, 115–16) to Exod 20:17.[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT].” (Durham, John I., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 3: Exodus, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998)[/FONT]

“The tenth commandment disallows covetousness. The general idea of the root hamad is "to desire earnestly," "to long after," or "to covet." In the parallel passage in Deuteronomy 5:21, it is paralleled by tith 'awweh ("to set one's desire" on something).
This commandment deals with man's inner heart and shows that none of the previous nine commandments could be observed merely from an external or formal act. Every inner instinct that led up to the act itself was also included. The point is as Paul later told Timothy, "Godliness with contentment is great gain" (1 Tim 6:6). Jesus also commented, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander" (Matt 15:19). (Expositors, Exodus, Walter Kaiser Jr)

“20:17 Tenth commandment. The final commandment forbids an individual to covet what belongs to another. Unlike all the other commands, it addresses inner feelings and thoughts such as envy or greed. If the Israelites were to enjoy a harmonious covenant relationship with God, every aspect of their lives must conform to his will. Outward adherence is insufficient; their inner selves must be patterned according to the divine principles of morality found in the Ten Commandments. As Jesus reminds us, to interpret the commandments as requiring only outward obedience is to misunderstand their purpose (Mt. 5:17–48). (Carson, D.A.; et al., The New Bible Commentary, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press) 1994.)

“Whatever action it spawns, this illegitimate desire for something that belongs to someone else is the core of the problem and a threat to the community; any action taken to fulfil such a desire is sin. (Walton, John H.; Matthews, Victor H.; Chavalas, Mark W., The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) c2000.)

So, one cannot “desire earnestly” a person or an object without engaging the imagination, of setting one’s heart on something that is not rightfully one’s own. Of course this is not to say that if a single person notices a person of the opposite sex and finds them attractive that this coveting. The idea seems to be more of a dissatisfaction of what one has been given in life by God, and to always be looking around thinking that what everybody else has is better and that one wishes that one could have what they do, never being satisfied with what one has.

Hopefully that answers your question, though I realize even as I write this that I should not be too optimistic about that actually happening.

Blessings,
ken[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Kencj]

"...which is involved in masturbation. Many people role play during sex, so I doubt this is much different..."

But masturbation doesn't necessarily have to involve fantasy, any more than sex between people does. It can be purely mechanical in both cases, can't it?

 

[dayhiker]

Mechanical sex is possible. But since the mind is the biggest sex organ its not too likely that any type of sex will totally mechanical. I don't think the intent to take anothers wife as show in comments above is the only tyle of sexual fantasy. Often sexual fantasy is generic. Or as with the men's wife fantasying about the pastor he had given permission. That does leave the issue of the pastor giving his permission.

 

[Kencj]

Jesus says anyone with hate in their heart is a murderer already -so isn't someone with adultery in their heart not an adulterer? Isn't covetousness wrong, simply wanting what's someone else's but not actually taking it? And doesn't that include their spouse? Or does it apply to men only?

Actually my question about sex being mechanical was rhetorical, sorry.

 

[Johnnz]

Fantasy need not be correlated with reality, just as imagery is different from plian description.

John
NZ

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

2 Timothy 4:3-4

it is a sin
and you do need lust for it

sex is a special thing that God created, it is a marvelous thing and masturbation and any sexual sin is basically corrupting or abusing God's creation of sex
it is a sin, even though people would like it not to be

 

[Johnnz]

Poor, circular reasoning.

John
NZ

 

[Kencj]

Seriously. A far more serious sin is making anything out to be a sin that the Bible never says is a sin. The Bible is very clear as to what is and what isn't a sin.

I'm also disappointed that anyone would still misunderstand what "lust" is after all this discussion.

 

[Kencj]

Fantasy need not be correlated with reality, just as imagery is different from plian description.

John
NZ

OK, that I don't understand at all, sorry.

Covetousness is actually what is immoral, not sexual desire, as has been pointed out before, particularly the reference to the tenth commandment above.

That, come to think of it, is what appalled me about my former friends and their incorporation of coveting another's spouse into their own sexual self-indulgence. They, or at least, she, should have been ashamed of coveting someone else's spouse and he should never have acquiesced to her adulterous fantasy. I don't believe for a second that because they were married it was OK while if it was one person masturbating with the same covetous fantasy, it would be immoral. It would be wrong in both cases, would it not?