Is Lust Sinful? (--> split)

[80sU2isBest]

for example I can relate to feeling violent impulses towards other drivers like 80s mentioned, but I've also had the experience more than once of (ill-advisedly) mentioning to someone that I felt an overwhelming urge to punch so-and-so repeatedly at some particular moment and gotten a shocked look and an "I've never wanted to hit anyone in my life, ever!"-type response. And that's fine, but I'm not going to moralize the fact that I'm naturally more aggression-prone than that person and feel ashamed over it.

Ha ha, just want to also let everyone know I'm not really a violent person and I don't want to shoot missles at anyone's car (unless there's an evil mean person in it). I just used that as an example of one of those crazy thoughts that come out of nowhere, that is easily dismissed.

 

[U2DMfan]

Example: I'm not saying that lusting after your girlfriend will cause you to view all women as sex objects. But I am saying that if someone frequently purposely lusts and fantasizes about passing strangers or Hollywood celebrities, musicians, etc, it is likely that it will impact the way he views women. It is likely that he will respect them less as individual human beings and treat them as sex objects.

It isn't always true (not that you said it was).
There are plenty of men who have high desire for women who also respect women to perhaps even a disproportionate degree.

But yeah, the opposite is more likely.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It isn't always true (not that you said it was).
There are plenty of men who have high desire for women who also respect women to perhaps even a disproportionate degree.

But yeah, the opposite is more likely.

Thanks, and I want to make it clear again that I'm not talking about someone having sexual desire for their romantic partner. I'm talking about men who frequently lust and fantasize after strangers.

 

[BVS]

Thinking about this conversation earlier and was reminded of the other extreme to this equation, corporal mortification. From my understanding part of those that believe in cm believe any thought of sex or attraction is dangerous. Anyone know more about this, other than what's in the DaVinci Code

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I would define lust as a consuming desire to have something that you shouldn't have, to the point where you lose self-control and your strong desire causes you to do something wrong. "Thou shalt not covet" comes to mind; you should not get so wrapped up in wanting something that isn't yours because it ultimately ends in you or someone else getting hurt.

Being attracted to a person is not necessarily lust; it's natural to think that other people are attractive in a sexual way. It's what you do with those feelings that can make it a sin.

Lust can lead to a lot of worse things like theft, rape, murder, unplanned pregnancy, divorce, tyranny, etc. It doesn't always have to do with sex. Lust is like a root condition that leads to a wide assortment of problems, and that's what makes it a sin. IMO.

I agree with that 100%

 

[Jive Turkey]

Thanks, and I want to make it clear again that I'm not talking about someone having sexual desire for their romantic partner. I'm talking about men who frequently lust and fantasize after strangers.

At the risk of coming of as a total perv, I would say I fantasize about women I might see and dont know. If a girl walks past me and has a nice body, I'm going to think about it for sure. And I allow myself to because I think it's healthy. You might argue that I'm treating that person as an object and you might be right at that moment in time, but it's a primal urge, thus perfectly natural. As a matter of fact, I would encourage strange women, or even men for that matter, to do the same with me. I'd find it flattering. And for all of that, I still have a great deal of respect for women. The two can coexist

 

[LemonMelon]

This is an interesting discussion.

I would define lust as a consuming desire to have something that you shouldn't have, to the point where you lose self-control and your strong desire causes you to do something wrong. "Thou shalt not covet" comes to mind; you should not get so wrapped up in wanting something that isn't yours because it ultimately ends in you or someone else getting hurt.

Being attracted to a person is not necessarily lust; it's natural to think that other people are attractive in a sexual way. It's what you do with those feelings that can make it a sin.

Lust can lead to a lot of worse things like theft, rape, murder, unplanned pregnancy, divorce, tyranny, etc. It doesn't always have to do with sex. Lust is like a root condition that leads to a wide assortment of problems, and that's what makes it a sin. IMO.

Absolutely.

I believe that an all-consuming lust for or an all-consuming interest in just anything can lead to bad priorities and a lack of perspective on what it is that the individual actually needs. The example you gave was theft, rape, murder, etc. but it can be something more simple like paying less attention to your spouse or having your attention directed where it doesn't need to be. Obviously, fantasy can go so far as to influence one to commit a crime, but don't overlook that dwelling on sex or money or anything else (the Bible throws out the catch-all "idolatry") is harmful in and of itself. For believers, the solution is to direct your attention to God with the assumption that He will give you the right priorities, but for anyone else it's just really important to make sure you keep a good balance going. I don't believe the value of this particular commandment is solely religious.

So, is lust a sin? In a religious context it obviously is, although the definition varies to a wild degree and, as a 20 year old guy, I am hardly the one to judge you on a personal basis. It bothers me a little that only those with rather flat sex drives seem to be able to align themselves with the Bible on this, whereas so many are more or less forced to be laissez-faire about it because it's impossible to do, but I suppose that was the point of Christ's birth and death. There's just no way to obey most of what's in the Bible to a T, so I'm convinced it's all about motivation. My faith has become a lot more about practicality these days.

 

[Liesje]

In my experience, people who have hung ups about sexuality, lust and everything else, have issues and are uncomfortable about sex, intimacy and the opposite sex. .

Agree

Example: I'm not saying that lusting after your girlfriend will cause you to view all women as sex objects. But I am saying that if someone frequently purposely lusts and fantasizes about passing strangers or Hollywood celebrities, musicians, etc, it is likely that it will impact the way he views women. It is likely that he will respect them less as individual human beings and treat them as sex objects.

I think this example and how you treat it seems like you already view sex as dirty and wrong, like you can't possibly think about sex in any of a gazillion contexts without it turning into some foul obsession that take's over one's self-control. IMO, sex is a lot of things that are the completely opposite and even having passing thoughts or 5 second fantasies about random people does not instantly dehumanize them.

I think you are making this too much about just sex and ignoring other dimensions on what attracts people. I am attracted to a certain "type" of man. All the guys I've ever been seriously attracted to, including my husband, or even if you started showing me flashcards of guys and I had to make a snap decision about whether I thought they were attractive or not...they are all pretty much the same type. If I see a random person and think "he's attractive..." it's not because of some uncontrollable urge to have sex with the next person that walks by, but because I'm attracted to a certain type, and there's probably tens of millions of people out there who fit that type. For me it's always more about the person himself/herself than just whether I'm in a horny mood and find random people attractive. Sometimes, I would see someone and find them pretty attractive at first, and then getting to know them, they become less attractive. Honestly I can't think of a time where I found someone unattractive at first and grew to change my mind. All the people I've been with or had "crushes" on or whatever you want to call it were people that I was initially attracted to from the beginning. If there's anything I've wondered about as far as what we do and don't control, it's how we become attracted to the type we're attracted to....

Anyway, as far as lust is concerned, I guess for me I would define "lust" as when those thoughts or urges become detrimental to others including relationships that person might already be in. I think you can damage yourself and/or your relationships without actually cheating on someone.

Whether or not it's a "sin", well, to me it doesn't matter. I don't think it's OK to get wrapped up in fantasy to the detriment of your relationships with others and living a fulfilling life. There are a lot of things that aren't explicitly defined as "sinful" that I think should be. Normal functioning people know when too far is too far, they don't need a god or a Bible to spell it out for them.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think treating a person as an object is, for example, street harassment. Or approaching them in a dehumanizing, disrespectful way. That would be action based upon whatever thoughts you're having, action that disregards the humanity of the other person. I think a fantasy could be dehumanizing if it involved violence or any other degrading aspects- and if the fantasies are all consuming, taking over your life in some way, divorced from reality, etc.

Seeing a stranger on the street and finding him/her attractive is fine and healthy, as long as it's always respectful of yourself and the other person.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think this example and how you treat it seems like you already view sex as dirty and wrong,

I have said that I believe that sex is a good thing in the context that I believe God designed it - marriage. I do not see how you are inferring from anything I have written that I think sex is wrong or dirty in the proper context.

I'm not the only person who believes that sex is not morally right in all contexts. Most people think there's at least some context in which sex is wrong. For instance, most people believe sex with someone married to someone else is wrong.

IMO, sex is a lot of things that are the completely opposite and even having passing thoughts or 5 second fantasies about random people does not instantly dehumanize them.

In reference to "passing thoughts", I have repeatedly said that "passing thoughts" are not sin, because you can't can't control when they happen.

In reference to "5 second fantasies", I didn't say that they will necessarily lead someone dehumanize the opposite sex. I said that frequent lusts and fantasies about strangers is likely to lead to that.

I think you are making this too much about just sex and ignoring other dimensions on what attracts people. I am attracted to a certain "type" of man. All the guys I've ever been seriously attracted to, including my husband, or even if you started showing me flashcards of guys and I had to make a snap decision about whether I thought they were attractive or not...they are all pretty much the same type. If I see a random person and think "he's attractive..." it's not because of some uncontrollable urge to have sex with the next person that walks by, but because I'm attracted to a certain type, and there's probably tens of millions of people out there who fit that type. For me it's always more about the person himself/herself than just whether I'm in a horny mood and find random people attractive. Sometimes, I would see someone and find them pretty attractive at first, and then getting to know them, they become less attractive. Honestly I can't think of a time where I found someone unattractive at first and grew to change my mind. All the people I've been with or had "crushes" on or whatever you want to call it were people that I was initially attracted to from the beginning. If there's anything I've wondered about as far as what we do and don't control, it's how we become attracted to the type we're attracted to....

The reason I am discussing this in relation to sex is because that's what exclusively what the topic is about - sexual lust. I am not talking about other attraction factors because it doesn't fit into the conversation I'm having.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Seeing a stranger on the street and finding him/her attractive is fine and healthy, as long as it's always respectful of yourself and the other person.

Oh I completely agree. I find lots of women attractive.

 

[Liesje]

The reason I am discussing this in relation to sex is because that's what exclusively what the topic is about - sexual lust. I am not talking about other attraction factors because it doesn't fit into the conversation I'm having.

But sexual lust is not always degrading, in fact I think sometimes it can be the opposite - putting someone up on a pedestal, probably more along the lines of idolization as far as what is the "sinful" aspect, not really the sex part. Neither extreme is healthy, but I don't automatically think sexual feelings about people are so extreme.

And I think type definitely fits into the conversation because I personally would never have a lustful thought about someone that didn't fit the type (not that I'm sitting here thinking lustful thoughts all day, just sayin'...). I brought it up because I don't believe any of it is about one making a conscious choice what religious code to abide by. Some people have really strong sexual attractions and others have little if any. It's easy enough to find some scientific or religious text that thereby justifies what we know about ourselves deep down but could not *really* change.

 

[Liesje]

I do not see how you are inferring from anything I have written that I think sex is wrong or dirty in the proper context.

That is my point, the context and the experiences are narrow thus shaping your view.

 

[Jive Turkey]

A topic of frequent debate is whether true right and wrong can exist without a higher power to define what is right and wrong. My assertion is that without God, all morality is ultimately subjective.

I always find it a little offensive when religion claims ownership of moral right and wrong. As if, without them, non believers would be amoral savages. In a way, it's sort of like saying "well, you don't believe in us, but you should thank us that you aren't all out raping each other right now" (an extreme example, to be sure ).There are a ton of examples of morality in the animal kingdom. And it's been shown that seemingly selfless acts are actually beneficial to survival. I don't need a religious moral compass to know what's right and what's wrong. I'm not saying that followers do; I'm sure the majority would be perfectly fine without having to consult the bible for all their choices. But to put a claim on the invention of morality always seemed so offputting to me

 

[80sU2isBest]

I always find it a little offensive when religion claims ownership of moral right and wrong. As if, without them, non believers would be amoral savages. In a way, it's sort of like saying "well, you don't believe in us, but you should thank us that you aren't all out raping each other right now" (an extreme example, to be sure ).There are a ton of examples of morality in the animal kingdom. And it's been shown that seemingly selfless acts are actually beneficial to survival. I don't need a religious moral compass to know what's right and what's wrong. I'm not saying that followers do; I'm sure the majority would be perfectly fine without having to consult the bible for all their choices. But to put a claim on the invention of morality always seemed so offputting to me

I didn't say that all nonbelievers are immoral. I said that without God, morality is subjective.

How does a moral standard get set if there is no perfect being to set the standard? How do we know that what our society says is wrong is actually wrong?

 

[80sU2isBest]

That is my point, the context and the experiences are narrow thus shaping your view.

Everything is shaped by context. Do you believe that sex is always acceptable? Do you think it's okay to have sex with someone who is married to someone else? If not, then there is limit and context and restriction to "sex being okay" in your mind, as well. My idea of the proper limits and restrictions are different than yours, but you do have them.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I didn't say that all nonbelievers are immoral. I said that without God, morality is subjective.

How does a moral standard get set if there is no perfect being to set the standard? How do we know that what our society says is wrong is actually wrong?

Oh, I know you weren't saying that. Quite the opposite actually. It's the implication that because of God, and therefore religion, nonbelievers are able to be moral.
A moral standard is set in us biologically. What makes morality any different than any other instinct? It's our ability to empathize that makes us moral, but empathy has a purely biological genesis.
The offence lies in that even if I chose not to believe in a God, religion would like to claim my morality as it's own

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Oh I completely agree. I find lots of women attractive.

Well I find lots of men attractive-and even if I have some sort of fantasy about them that automatically makes it lust and sinful? I just don't think you can regiment and control thought like that. Or that you necessarily should. And honestly I don't think God expects that. I think he expects respect for ourselves and for others, and I don't think sexual thoughts automatically equal disrespect. They can, but they don't always or automatically. If I'm attracted physically or emotionally to a married man or I fantasize about them that is automatically sinful? No-it's acting on that that is sinful. I can try with all my might to control that and to not be attracted at all, but I will fail and I have. But I do not act upon it.

It's all in how you treat that in your own mind and heart that makes all the difference. Because that will also dictate how you treat the other people involved.

Lust is selfishness- thinking you can do whatever you want, have whatever you want, treat others however you want in order to satisfy whatever it is that you want to satisfy. I think that is far more objectifying of others than a passing sexual attraction to a stranger is. Unless you're talking about violence or some other form of degradation, like I said before.

 

[the iron horse]

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

I'm a conservative Christian and I was not offended by The Last Temptation of Christ.


Lust a sin?

The denotation of lust:
1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

Yes, that is sin.


We are wired for sex. God created sex.
It's only natural that when we see a person attractive to us that
we have those thoughts.

It's something that most of us can control. Can you imagine a world
where our thoughts go unrestrained?

It's only then these desires become overwhelming and the
driving force in a persons life that it becomes sin.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm a conservative Christian and I was not offended by The Last Temptation of Christ.

The Bible says that Christ was co-creator with God. Do you believe that Christ as God in the flesh, fantasized about having sex with his creation, Mary Magadalene?

We are wired for sex. God created sex.

The Bible says that God designed it for certain context only.

It's only natural that when we see a person attractive to us that
we have those thoughts.

Uh oh, I can feel the pull into one of my favorite theological topics- this would be the perfect seque into rebirth, 2 Corinthians 5:17 and its effects upon the desires of Christians, you know: the sin nature crucified and all that. Must - resist- the - temptation....

 

[BVS]

The Bible says that God designed it for certain context only.

What verses are you referring to?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Oh, I know you weren't saying that. Quite the opposite actually. It's the implication that because of God, and therefore religion, nonbelievers are able to be moral.

Actually, I'll go the opposite direction and say that judged by God's standards of morality, I am not moral.

That's why Christ died on the cross; so that, through his shed blood, he could redeem unrighteous mankind.

What makes morality any different than any other instinct? It's our ability to empathize that makes us moral, but empathy has a purely biological genesis.

It does? That's proven?

Let's imagine that you are correct; that empathy has a purely biological genesis, that God did not create empathy. Since we are all different, won't we all have different empathy? And if empathy is the basis of morality, wouldn't that make morality subjective, dependent on the person's level of empathy?

The offence lies in that even if I chose not to believe in a God, religion would like to claim my morality as it's own

If God exists, morality is HIS standard, not the invention of a religion.

If God doesn't exist, morality is completely subjective anyway.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What verses are you referring to?

I've already quoted them in this thread. The verses that teach against adultery and fornication.

 

[BVS]

I've already quoted them in this thread. The verses that teach against adultery and fornication.

Well this thread is 8 pages long now, so that would be like a needle in a small haystack.

But would you agree one of the reasons sex was designed by God would be to express love?

What if Jesus loved Mary in a romantic way? What if he had a desire to marry her? Could he not fantasize about that future?

Although you haven't actually come out and stated it you've somewhat admitted that fantasy and lust are in fact different, so why couldn't Jesus fantasize?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Well this thread is 8 pages long now, so that would be like a needle in a small haystack.

But you were the one I posted them in response to in the first place.

I'll try to address the rest of the post tomorrow. I'm off to watch the final Daybreak on streaming Netflix.

 

[Liesje]

Well this thread is 8 pages long now, so that would be like a needle in a small haystack.

But would you agree one of the reasons sex was designed by God would be to express love?

What if Jesus loved Mary in a romantic way? What if he had a desire to marry her? Could he not fantasize about that future?

Although you haven't actually come out and stated it you've somewhat admitted that fantasy and lust are in fact different, so why couldn't Jesus fantasize?

I know the question is not directed at me but I've always been taught that Jesus was both fully divine AND FULLY HUMAN so it stands to reason that he could *gasp* think those thoughts, have a sexual relationship..... It does not change the way I feel about God/Jesus/Bible/theology.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Actually, I'll go the opposite direction and say that judged by God's standards of morality, I am not moral.

That's why Christ died on the cross; so that, through his shed blood, he could redeem unrighteous mankind.

You know what I mean though. You have a set of standards that you would say are morally right. As do I. I don't use religion as a guide. It's innate. Yet religion claims that my moral standards are thanks to them (or rather, thanks to God) regardless of whether I am part of a religion or not.

It does? That's proven?

Proven in the sense that evolution has been proven and there is no evidence for an intelligent designer (But I doubt we'll find middle ground on this one )

Let's imagine that you are correct; that empathy has a purely biological genesis, that God did not create empathy. Since we are all different, won't we all have different empathy? And if empathy is the basis of morality, wouldn't that make morality subjective, dependent on the person's level of empathy?

Let's assume there is no God and empathy/morality is purely a function of evolution. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you is a fine basis for evolutionary success. We observe it in nature all the time from animals that can't even grasp the concept of God or religion

 

[PhilsFan]

I don't like the idea that God created us imperfect and because of that we should be guilty about our imperfections.

If I consciously do something wrong, I'll feel guilty about it, and rightly so. But having some thoughts about someone I find attractive, just because I can't help it? That seems awfully unfair and unrealistic of God to say I'm doing something wrong.

 

[INDY500]

There seems to be as much misunderstanding surrounding the concept of lust as there is about pride. Which is understandable considering "horny" and "narcissistic" are the foundational building blocks of human nature in today's mass media and pop culture.


And yes, that includes all the really good Ted Nugent songs.

 

[Irvine511]

There seems to be as much misunderstanding surrounding the concept of lust as there is about pride. Which is understandable considering "horny" and "narcissistic" are the foundational building blocks of human nature in today's mass media and pop culture.


And yes, that includes all the really good Ted Nugent songs.

so how do you understand lust and pride?

and, on the whole, really good thread.


for my part, i'd view lust in degrees ... we can lust after something and be perfectly in control of that moment of intense, animal desire. for me, i could lust after the really awesome lamp we just saw, a soft serve ice cream on a hot day, or what might be lurking in that guy's 501's. but i'm able to control that lust by recognizing what it is -- something primal (food! sex! acquisition!) and evaluating the context in which it arose and then regulating my behavior. i might decide that i don't have $200 to drop on a lamp, that i need to drop 10 more lbs so no ice cream, and it really would be in appropriate to walk up to the dude in the jeans and hit on him (especially because i am virtually married). that seems to me to be lust with a lowercase "l" and a part of human nature, and the subjugation of which separates us from animals, and the better we are at delaying gratification, the more successful we are likely to be in life itself.

but then we might consider all-consuming Lust to be the sexual form of the "Greed is Good" speech from Wall Street. that the best sex is a lot, that the best partners are the hottest, that sex is a sport, and an individual's worth is measured by their sexual prowess and list of impressive partners. when sex becomes like money, when it becomes like a material object, when it can drive you to neglect other aspects of your life and the life of others -- what some might call (the very problematic term) "sex addition" -- then i think we can say that this is A Bad Thing.