Is Lust Sinful? (--> split)

[80sU2isBest]

While Willem Dafoe and Caviezel played controversial Jesus roles, only one of those roles was actually offensive to liberal Christians or a general non-Christian audience.I can't recall a single movie that has offended me as much as that horrid piece of tripe. And that's not even getting into the antisemitism argument.

Liberal Christians weren't offended by the portrayal of Jesus fantasizing about having sex with Mary Magdalene in Last Temptation?

 

[U2DMfan]

Liberal Christians weren't offended by the portrayal of Jesus fantasizing about having sex with Mary Magdalene in Last Temptation?

I don't believe they were.

Liberal Christians are those that understand historical relevance of the reading of the gospels, rather than a fundamental reading and understand that Magdalene was not a prostitute and that Jesus...well, he was still a man in some respect, right?

And it was a fantasy after all.

 

[BVS]

Or it could be that he's telling the truth the way he sees it.

Who knows...

Then maybe he's as delusional as Gibson

Liberal Christians weren't offended by the portrayal of Jesus fantasizing about having sex with Mary Magdalene in Last Temptation?

Never saw the movie but why would you be offended by the mere fact that he fantasized about sex? Wasn't he human?

 

[Pearl]

Never saw the movie but why would you be offended by the mere fact that he fantasized about sex? Wasn't he human?

And if we're to believe Jesus and Mary were lovers (as hinted in the Gnostic gospels) wouldn't sex enter the brain? If Jesus was God, and God created sex, what's the problem?

 

[80sU2isBest]

And if we're to believe Jesus and Mary were lovers (as hinted in the Gnostic gospels) wouldn't sex enter the brain? If Jesus was God, and God created sex, what's the problem?

I don't know if the the Gnostic Gospels hint at Jesus and Mary Magdalene being lovers, but the Gnostic Gospels are hardly respected as being Biblically true.

The Bible says that fantasizing about sex with anyone other than your spouse is a sin. In fact, Jesus himself said that lust is a sin. If he had lusted after Mary Magdalene he would be sinning, and if he had sinned, he would not be "the perfect lamb" "shed for the remission of our sins".

Jesus said:

“You have heard that the law of Moses says, `Do not commit adultery.' But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

Christ was "tempted" to sin, but never actually sinned.

 

[Pearl]

I don't know if the the Gnostic Gospels hint at Jesus and Mary Magdalene being lovers, but the Gnostic Gospels are hardly respected as being Biblically true.

The problem here is that you believe the Bible to be the absolute Word of God. I don't because there's a lot of proof that it isn't.

I can see where this thread is heading, and I don't want to get involved. I just feel the discussion will hit a lot of walls and dead ends.

 

[80sU2isBest]

The problem here is that you believe the Bible to be the absolute Word of God. I don't because there's a lot of proof that it isn't.

Is there? That issue certainly has been debated over the past 2000 years.

I can see where this thread is heading, and I don't want to get involved. I just feel the discussion will hit a lot of walls and dead ends.

I'm not trying to argue, believe me. You asked what the problem is with Jesus "fantasizing about sex with Mary Magdalene", and I told you, from the Biblical perspective, which is the perspective that probably most Christians will have on the issue.

Truth be told, I think many "liberal Christians" would also take issue with the idea.

 

[Pearl]

Its not an argument that I am seeing. Its the fact that you and I are on polar ends of an issue - you take the Bible literally, I don't. If we were to discuss that, we would get no where.

 

[INDY500]

The Bible says that fantasizing about sex with anyone other than your spouse is a sin. In fact, Jesus himself said that lust is a sin. If he had lusted after Mary Magdalene he would be sinning, and if he had sinned, he would not be "the perfect lamb" "shed for the remission of our sins".

Jesus said:

“You have heard that the law of Moses says, `Do not commit adultery.' But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

Christ was "tempted" to sin, but never actually sinned.

Exactly right. Nice to hear from you 80s. I've been MIA myself for almost a year.

 

[BVS]

Not to take this off subject even more, but some suggest the original text was "wife" and not "woman" that looking lustfully would only be a sin if the woman was already married.

Otherwise dating in general would be a sin.

 

[deep]

I don't know if the the Gnostic Gospels hint at Jesus and Mary Magdalene being lovers, but the Gnostic Gospels are hardly respected as being Biblically true.

The Bible says that fantasizing about sex with anyone other than your spouse is a sin. In fact, Jesus himself said that lust is a sin. If he had lusted after Mary Magdalene he would be sinning, and if he had sinned, he would not be "the perfect lamb" "shed for the remission of our sins".

Jesus said:

“You have heard that the law of Moses says, `Do not commit adultery.' But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

Christ was "tempted" to sin, but never actually sinned.

without getting into Gnostic gospels or Jesus and Mary having relationships



I will say, that to say Jesus was without sin just doesn't hold up

why was he baptised? baptism is to wash away the sins

also, when he said 'he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone'
he was admitting that even he was not sinless.

 

[yolland]

Just to clarify, what are we taking "lust" to mean here? A sexual thought about someone lasting over X number of seconds? Any sexual thought about her/him no matter how fleeting? Plotting to seduce someone? ...etc. ...?

 

[80sU2isBest]

I will say, that to say Jesus was without sin just doesn't hold up

why was he baptised? baptism is to wash away the sins

Baptism doesn't wash away sins. You could be baptized 5 times a day for the rest of your life, but if you are no reborn, your sins are not washed away.

The blood of Christ is what washes away sins.

He was baptized as an example for us

also, when he said 'he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone'
he was admitting that even he was not sinless.

Deep, he was talking to the men who were about to cast stones at a woman caught in adultery. He had compassion on her and told them that they had no right to judge her, because they were sinners.

He then told her "Go and sin no more."

 

[80sU2isBest]

Just to clarify, what are we taking "lust" to mean here? A sexual thought about someone lasting over X number of seconds? Any sexual thought about her/him no matter how fleeting? Plotting to seduce someone? ...etc. ...?

Satan tempts every one of us with thoughts. The first thought is not a sin. It's when a person takes the lust and dwells on it that it becomes sin.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Not to take this off subject even more, but some suggest the original text was "wife" and not "woman" that looking lustfully would only be a sin if the woman was already married.

They may suggest that, but it's not accurate. Lexicons tell us that the Greek word for "woman" used in this verse simply means "woman". The only other meaning for that Greek word in the entire New Testament is "a female".

Otherwise dating in general would be a sin.

Why do you say that? It's not possible to date without fantasizing about having sex with that person?

 

[deep]

Just to clarify, what are we taking "lust" to mean here? A sexual thought about someone lasting over X number of seconds? Any sexual thought about her/him no matter how fleeting? Plotting to seduce someone? ...etc. ...?

yes, it is maddening

I don't believe in thought crimes
So awhile ago I decided the concept of 'sin' was totally useless, unless you wanted to control people and have power oven them for being human,

Stealing is a not a sin. Murder is not a sin. They are both crimes and should be judged and punished by society. Not judged and forgiven by a group that operates outside of the law, pays no taxes and gets all the benefits as those that do pay the taxes and obey the laws.

 

[nathan1977]

I don't believe in thought crimes

Oh, why not...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that when Jesus said that "if you look with lust on someone, you've already committed adultery with them in your heart," he was speaking against a worldview that sees people as tools for personal gratification. Objectifying people by reducing them to the body parts that only give you pleasure goes against the notion of loving others before yourself.

But this is really a topic for a different thread.

 

[deep]

to have sexual thoughts is normal and healthy, a part of being human

to label all sexual thoughts as sin and to shame young people is the real 'sin'.

of course being obsessed with sex is not healthy and I am not saying anything goes. I also think it should be a crime to let children have pornography.

The most pious person is going to have sexual thoughts, people have sex dreams.
I don't believe Satan is responsible for sex dreams.

 

[nathan1977]

to have sexual thoughts is normal and healthy, a part of being human

I agree, but Jesus isn't talking about abstract sexual thoughts. He talks very specifically about lust -- which, in this context, can be understood as the craving to sexually possess someone else.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Why do you say that? It's not possible to date without fantasizing about having sex with that person?

if you're over a certain age and are not having those thoughts, you're either repressing them, no doubt to the detriment of your well being, or are lying to yourself and probably feeling a great deal of unreasonable guilt

 

[Irvine511]

I agree, but Jesus isn't talking about abstract sexual thoughts. He talks very specifically about lust -- which, in this context, can be understood as the craving to sexually possess someone else.

so how did Scorcese do on this part? i can barely remember the film ...

speaking only for myself, i find it impossible to believe that Jesus, the man, never had sexual thoughts and never had thoughts that would be akin to having sex with someone else. if God became man, it would seem to me that he did all things men (and people) do: laugh, cry, vomit, fart, sweat, chew his nails, have wet dreams, etc.

it's this idea that Jesus was a man who was able to live without the basic functions of being a human being that is where Christianity pounds dysfunction into it's adherents. your very natural thoughts and functions are not of God, they are gross, etc. self hate is not of God.

 

[nathan1977]

so how did Scorcese do on this part? i can barely remember the film ...

All I really remember of this movie is Harvey Keitel as the worst possible Judas, with a Brooklyn accent and an orange wig. "'Ey, Jesus, where we goin' next? You know what? Fugeddaboudit." Yikes.

speaking only for myself, i find it impossible to believe that Jesus, the man, never had sexual thoughts and never had thoughts that would be akin to having sex with someone else. if God became man, it would seem to me that he did all things men (and people) do: laugh, cry, vomit, fart, sweat, chew his nails, have wet dreams, etc.

I really like the idea of Jesus laughing at a dirty joke. And, given the nature of the people he hung out with, I'm willing to bet he did.

This is again a discussion for a different thread -- but I think lust is different than sexual thoughts. Lust has to with control, particularly of that which does not belong to you.

In response to JiveTurkey's post, I'd like to think that self-control is a healthy aspect of sexuality as well.

 

[Jive Turkey]

In response to JiveTurkey's post, I'd like to think that self-control is a healthy aspect of sexuality as well.

Oh, no doubt about that, Nathan, I just think a line like "can you not be in a relationship without fantasizing about having sex with that person" reeks of repression and bottled up emotions; emotions that are perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of. I think it's in these pressures that religion can really stifle a person

 

[80sU2isBest]

if you're over a certain age and are not having those thoughts, you're either repressing them, no doubt to the detriment of your well being, or are lying to yourself and probably feeling a great deal of unreasonable guilt

Ah, so you are my head shrink now? Must be nice work, for someone who doesn't even know me. Where do I send the check for your useful diagnosis?

Here's the real scoop from someone who actually knows me (myself). I'm 43 years old and single. Those thoughts do come into my head but frankly, not much, because I don't focus on that aspect of life at all. But those are not lusts unless I dwell on them and make them mine. I do not want to lust, therefore when those thoughts pop up in my mind, I try to turn them away. This is not "to the detriment of my well being", as I have no desire or need to focus on that part of my life. If i were a married person, of course I would want to have sexual feelings about my wife, but I'm not married.

As for guilt, oh gee whiz, that shows you how little you do know me at all. I don't invest in unreasonable guilt at all. I believe that Christ has forgiven me for all sins past and present. If I do mess up and sin, I confess it and move on. I am not stuck in guilt, I can assure you.

 

[80sU2isBest]

it's this idea that Jesus was a man who was able to live without the basic functions of being a human being that is where Christianity pounds dysfunction into it's adherents. your very natural thoughts and functions are not of God, they are gross, etc. self hate is not of God.

Who said wet dreams was a sin? Not me, and not the Bible. I would say it's nature's way of doing something that celibate people don't do.

Having sex, however is not a "basic function" of being a human being. I don't have sex, haven't had sex for 23 years. Am I less a human being for that?

 

[80sU2isBest]

I really like the idea of Jesus laughing at a dirty joke. And, given the nature of the people he hung out with, I'm willing to bet he did.

Ephesians 5:4
Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

Colossians 3:17
And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

If Jesus told dirty jokes, then Paul obviously expected more from Christians than Christ himself actually delivered.

The "people he hung out with" doesn't mean he told or even laughed at dirty jokes. If someone doesn't like dirty jokes, they won't laugh at them. I worked patrol in a police department for 7 years. I heard plenty of dirty jokes from the cops I worked with. I don't like dirty jokes, so I didn't laugh at them.

If Jesus laughed at dirty jokes, it's either because he liked them or because he wanted to "fit in". Considering those two verses above, do you think he liked dirty jokes? If not, was he insecure, so that he felt he needed to act a certain way in order to fit in with his disciples?

This is again a discussion for a different thread -- but I think lust is different than sexual thoughts. Lust has to with control, particularly of that which does not belong to you.

Look up the definition of lust (verb) in a Lexicon.

 

[Irvine511]

Having sex, however is not a "basic function" of being a human being. I don't have sex, haven't had sex for 23 years. Am I less a human being for that?

i know we're totally going off topic but i think this is so interesting that i want to respond ... no, i don't think you are less of a human being for that. i think you are exerting a great, almost unnatural degree of self-control. actually having sex involves two willing participants, and there are people who choose not to have sex either because of the unavailability of an appropriate partner or because they do not yet have the correct circumstances in which they feel it is appropriate to have sex with said appropriate partner.

while there are a small amount of people who are genuinely asexual, the vast majority of human beings -- male, female, gay or straight -- are hardwired to want to have sex. i don't think there's anything wrong with that, and since you believe in God (i myself remain agnostic), that's obviously what he wanted us to do. yes, self-control is a good thing, as is the delaying of gratification, but it does strike me as odd this wishing away of "lustful" thoughts. there is an animal aspect of sexuality, the drive itself, that has a critical evolutionary function for the past, what, 65 milllion years -- up until my parent's generation, we lived in a world where children (and mothers) used to die in childbirth, in a world where if you made it to 50 you were doing well, in a world where disease and accidents and plague wiped out millions of people, it really does seem necessary for the survival of the species for most people to have a very, very strong drive for sexual relations that are about little more than friction for the sake of ejaculation. it seems to me a part of being human.

for example, when looking at men, orgasm and ejaculation are actually two separate things. some people ejaculate with no orgasm, and some people orgasm without ejaculation, but that's either the result of training or dysfunction. sex does feel good, and it feels good so you have incentive to do it again and again and again. men especially when they are younger get frequent erections, and every man has a virtually inexhaustible supply of semen for most of his lifespan. clearly, nature wants us to have sex. where we come in is recognizing the dangers of unregulated sexuality -- the #1 consequence being unwanted, unintended children ... and, imho, that's where most religious instruction against sex outside of marriage actually find their motivation, rather than from God himself -- and we thusly regulate our urges in the same way that we don't eat ice cream and nachos all day everyday.

now, with all that in mind, i think it's entirely possible for people to willingly and happily subjugate their sexual urges, thoughts, impulses, or whatever. you obviously have thought about it and have arrived at an intellectual understanding of the role that sexuality should play in your life. and that is fine. i totally respect that and am impressed at how thoroughly your faith influences your choices. but i also think it would be remiss, 80s, to not recognize the fact that many, many people are unable to exercise the restraint you are able to -- and to exercise that restraint in a way that does no psychological damage.

i suppose my own view is that being sexual is a bit like being a superhero -- and that with great power (and it is a great thing) comes great responsibility. so act accordingly.

 

[nathan1977]

If Jesus told dirty jokes, then Paul obviously expected more from Christians than Christ himself actually delivered.

I didn't say he told dirty jokes -- I said I liked the idea of him laughing at one. (To me it makes him human.) Given that he hung out with guys who were mostly illiterate and uneducated, chances are good their vernacular was more vulgar than we might like to admit. Paul himself is given to some vulgarities in the New Testament -- we've cleaned up the language to make it polite, but it's still there.

do you think he liked dirty jokes?

I don't know -- there are some dirty jokes that are pretty funny...

Look up the definition of lust (verb) in a Lexicon.

Among the definitions of "lust" is this:
a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followed by "for"): a lust for power.

Since one does not, generally speaking, lust sexually for power, then it's entirely legitimate to say that, in addition to the sexual connotation of lust (which is obvious), there is a much deeper force at work. I'd argue that this force is covetousness (another definition of lust) -- the desire to possess that which we do not own. Lust then seems to take covetousness (already condemned by the Torah) and add a sexual component to it. As a result, Jesus says that anyone who wishes to sexually possess another person to whom they are not married, has committed adultery in their heart -- because they've violated the basic tenets of God's law, which is to value other people before ones'self. Lusting after someone else reduces them to merely being your sexual plaything.

Anyone who's been on the other end of a disgusting leer knows what I'm talking about.

 

[BVS]

They may suggest that, but it's not accurate. Lexicons tell us that the Greek word for "woman" used in this verse simply means "woman". The only other meaning for that Greek word in the entire New Testament is "a female".

Bible Shockers!: Wife, not woman in Matthew 5:28

Why do you say that? It's not possible to date without fantasizing about having sex with that person?

Well there doesn't seem to be a agreed upon definition in here, but by your definition it seems very difficult. Part of dating is sexual attraction, is it not?

 

[Irvine511]

Among the definitions of "lust" is this:
a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followed by "for"): a lust for power.

Since one does not, generally speaking, lust sexually for power, then it's entirely legitimate to say that, in addition to the sexual connotation of lust (which is obvious), there is a much deeper force at work. I'd argue that this force is covetousness (another definition of lust) -- the desire to possess that which we do not own. Lust then seems to take covetousness (already condemned by the Torah) and add a sexual component to it. As a result, Jesus says that anyone who wishes to sexually possess another person to whom they are not married, has committed adultery in their heart -- because they've violated the basic tenets of God's law, which is to value other people before ones'self. Lusting after someone else reduces them to merely being your sexual plaything.

Anyone who's been on the other end of a disgusting leer knows what I'm talking about.

this seems a fair exploration to me. i think it's far to easy to conflate "lust" with simply getting turned out at a sexual thought.

it could be argued that within sexuality there are impulses and desires between two people where by they might act out roles of sexual possession and certainly those withing s/m communities would argue that the it's really the "m" that's in control even if it looks like they are being possessed and used like a plaything by the "s" ... but that's a dive too deep into the complexities of human sexual desire than i think the Bible would ever go.