Okay. But I said that I allowed myself to become angry. I didn't imply you were angry.



My interest is in correcting your flawed interpretation of a scripture. If the meaning of that scripture states that all human beings are driven by sinful intent...oh well. Just because you don't like what the scripture implies doesn't mean you can change the meaning.

No offense is intended by this, but you need to read posts more carefully. Your reaction last night was completely unjustified. Your reactions today have been completely unjustified. I am not attacking you, I was correcting a flawed interpretation you had of a scripture. You said something to the effect "Oh, Jesus said it was okay to have sex, as long as you loved the person" and I was correcting you on that. Jesus said sexual desire is wrong outside of marriage. That's what Jesus said...it's what Christians believe. That's not me judging you. How can I be judging you when I am simply explaining what Jesus taught? I don't care about your personal life, I can't be any more clear. I really don't care. If you want to involve me in your personal life, then I would take an interest, but until someone invites me into their personal life, I don't think about it. I don't judge people for how they live their life, but I won't lie about what's in the Bible and I won't lie to them if they ask my opinion on a subject.

But that's precisely what caused the detour.

I put out the premise that we were talking about acts of pure love.

You were the one who had to jump in and start mocking that premise as being 'farfeteched' and unrealistic.

That was what caused the detour!

My premise is that the motivation is LOVE.

It doesn't need to be personal.

That's just the premise period.

So the question of lust really shouldn't have even come up in the first place.

What does it mean when you point one finger at me?

In other words,... would pre-marital sex (based on love, not lust) be a sin?

replace the you with someone, will you??

and I like the face you are making, it suits you. thought this one suits you more

God doesn't care what other motives you might have. Jesus taught that if you feel sexual desire outside of marriage, it's a sin. That's what Jesus taught. Your personal beliefs have no place when discussing what the Bible says. There is no need to interpret that scripture, that's what that scripture says.

So it doesn't matter what other motivations one feels, if one feels sexual desire for someone he/she isn't married to, then that is a sin, according to Jesus.

I am not judging you or anyone else, okay? I'm simply explaining what that scripture in Matthew means. I know you believe differently, I respect your right to believe the way you do. I am asking you to respect the fact that what Jesus taught was clear. If you won't extend me the same courtesy as I have offered you, there is nothing I can do about it.

Why would someone have sex with another, if he/she didn't feel sexual desire for that other person? Sex out of pure love, with absolutely no sexual desire? Can that happen? Maybe with Viagra and a lot of lube, but...why?

"Lust" in the Bible, the word that Jesus used, means "sexual desire". You can't use another definition, because that would deviate from what Jesus meant with his words.

Abra,

Why not ask that question from a philosophical point of view? Spider can tell you the Christian view based on the new testament and I can tell you based on the Original (old) testament. Philosophically it is perfectly fine to ask that question and ponder it ourselves and come to different conclusions how WE feel about it and our personal experience with it.

Also I am detecting a recurring theme that we use words that different people are defining differently so in many cases we are not even talking about the same thing. Let's clearly define terms when we can.

I looked up "Lust"

Got a chuckle out of it

http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/lust.html

Oh Invisible. I don't want to do this today, I'm not in the mood. I meant "you", "not someone". You have pointed an accusing finger at me a couple times in this thread.

but....but....but....

that's what I'm here for

Holding a mirror in front of you, just to see yourself in it.

Ok, Spider, I’ll take your word for it.

In that case I reject the entire religion as being totally unrealistic. I don’t believe that the creator of this universe could possibly be that ludicrous.

Abra,

I know this is a tough topic because it brings up painful times in your past. I will try and step gingerly, but please see my response from a philosophical perspective rather then a personal one.

Fact #1 - The vast majority of people - probably in the upper 90% - do not have pre-marital sex with the intent to marry the person they are having sex with. They may have positive feelings or be in love but most likley there is no commitment to marriage.

Fact #2 - The vast majority of people who have pre-marital sex end up NOT getting married. (The average American male sleeps with quite a number of women before he settles down with one. Which means that if he slept with ten women (on the conservative side) and married one, then only 10% of his pre-marital sex ended in marriage.

Fact #3 - The vast majority of individuals (much higher percentage by women) are hurt terribly when a sexual relationship ends without marriage/long term commitment.

I think we can conclude that in MOST situation pre-marital sex is harmful and not a good thing (certainly not a kind, loving G-dly act.)

We’ve been though this many times in the past. It’s simply not possible to come to a consensus on what specific words mean.

For example, I’ll never accept Spider’s definition of ‘lust’. I don’t care if he can find a billion dictionaries to support his notion. I can probably find a billion more than won’t support that ideal.

Here’s the one that Invisible just posted a link to:



This falls a bit more in line with my way of thinking, but not entirely. At least it gives is qualification. I would say that my sexual desires were not inordinate and therefore they don’t’ quality as lust by the above definition.

However, I have already stated my definitions of the term. Lust is to want someone for the pure physical pleasure. Love is to genuinely care for someone.

Based on my definition, love and lust cannot coexist because love negates lust. You can’t simultaneously love someone and not love them. If your motivation is love then it’s not lust.

It’s pretty straight-forward.

But Spider clearly disagrees with my definition, and I disagree with his.

So, we’re at an impasse. Nothing left to do but to agree to disagree.

As I said in my last post. I think Spider's definition of 'lust' is ludicrous, and I don't believe that God is ludicrous.

In interprets the Bible by his own interpretations and then sticks those onto God.

I disagree with both his interpretations, and his method of 'creating God’ based on his own personal interpretations of religious doctrine.

Spider is not going to define God for me. I can assure of that.

Its funny I recently responded to another thread titled:

"HI PLEASE TELL ME WHY MEN ARE SO INTO BREAKING MY HEART"

and the woman who created the thread wrote:

"TELL ME IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME "

I responded:

There is a great incentive for a man not to try and figure out quickly whether or not he is compatible with you. A man knows that he can have sexual pleasure so why should he rush to figure out if the two of you are compatible?

Once he gets tired of the novelty of sleeping with a new woman he then has motivation to figure out if you two are compatible. If you are not then you are left with a broken heart.

If you took sex off the table ALL guys would have no other incentive to hang out with you ONLY if they really liked you and thought there might be a real future. You will have a much higher percentage of success and much less odds of a broken heart.

Try it! ;-)

Christianity is based on the belief that humans can live sinless lives by willpuwer and dedication. Nobody but Jesus has ever been able to do that their entire life, everybody slips up. Eventually, our willpower and dedication wain. Therefore we need a savior, someone who can save us from our sins and take our judgement upon himself.

In this light, Jesus' statement against sexual desire makes perfect sense. The law is intended to make us aware of our sins and make us aware that no matter how hard we try, we are still sinners. When I first started becoming a Christian, I looked at the commandments and said "I can't do it." What I didn't realize at the time is that was exactly the reaction God wanted. The next step is to say "I need to be saved from the judgement I deserve" The reaction you are having, that God's desire for us to feel no sexual desire is "unrealistic" is exactly what God expects you to feel. That's all according to Christian doctrine.

That may well be true. But I’m not concerned with what most people do. I’m only concerned with what my intentions were. I’m trying to justify the religion with respect to my experience in life not with respect to the experience of other people. I didn’t live their lives, so that’s outside of the scope of what applies to me.



Again, you’re talking about what the vast majority of people do. I couldn’t care less what the vast majority of people do. I’m only concerned with how this stupid religion applies to my life’s experience. If it doesn’t apply to me then clearly is has nothing to offer me.



Again, you’re talking about the vast majority of people which is totally irrelevant.



I think most pre-marital relationships ended with emotional pain whether sex was involved or not.

In fact, in America supposedly 50% of marriages end in divorce, and we know for a fact that many that do not end in divorce are quite painful even within the marriage. Therefore MOST marriage results in terrible hurt. So how does this apply to pre-marital sex? Clearly ALL RELATIONSHIPS of any kind have the potential to end in extreme hurt. Marriage obviously doesn’t prevent hurt in any way.

So I’m totally at a loss to see what you point might be????

You seem to be trying to suggest that pre-marital sex has a higher risk of causing emotional pain, but I don’t see it. Marriages have resulted in extremely emotional pain, not only to the couple involved but to their CHILDREN as well!!

Taking the emotional damage to Children into accounted then failed marriages reign supreme in causing extreme hurt and pain. Not only after the divorce, but even during the lengthy time the marriage slowly becomes ugly. Marriage can prolong the emotional pain!!!

Why then does God say: Be fruitful and multiply when there is no mentioning of marriage between Adam and Eve? It's like he wants his cake and eat it at the same time.

I don't disagree with that defintion. That is the accepted defintion in Engish. But the Greek word "epithumeo", which is translated as "lust" in Matthew 5:28 means "to have a desire for, long for, to desire". "epithumeo" covers any sexual desire for another. Sometimes the meaning of English words have changed and sometimes the translators used words that were "close enough" in meaning. I have tried to be clear that I was discussing the defintion of the word "lust" in Matthew 5:28. Not any other defintion, which I feel would be irrelavant to the discussion, because we are discussing what Jesus said and Jesus used the word "epithumeo"

You are perfectly correct. This is the premise of Christianity. It’s an ideology that I feel is extremely misguided. It is this focus on Sin and Salvation that causes Christians to become judgmental of others. This is what causes young Christians to feel unnecessary guilt and shame for their natural innate desires. It’s an extremely emotionally negative religion.

It takes everything that humans naturally innately desire and proclaims them to be filthy and sinful.

It’s an extremely negative view of God and Creation.

It’s seriously demented.

It had to have been created by the perverted minds of men.