An Experiment in Xian Perception

[Sweetdeath]

"You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.'  But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

I personally have acted on this probably more times than the average person has acted on sex physically.  Who's the "bigger" sinner?

It seems incredibly strange and against nature to attempt to deny the primal urges of sexuality. Without sex we fail to exist

I quite enjoy le sex. *sips earl gray*

[Stevil]

It seems incredibly strange and against nature to attempt to deny the primal urges of sexuality. Without sex we fail to exist

Who said to deny primal urges of sexuality.

Lustful thoughts are a part of sex

[AnimatedDirt]

Lustful thoughts are a part of sex

It leads to sex, yes, but it's not necessarily part of sex.  There's healthy lust and not-so-healthy lust.  One leads to sex another might lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...

[Ali]

It leads to sex, yes, but it's not necessarily part of sex.  There's healthy lust and not-so-healthy lust.  One leads to sex another might lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...

But throwing out all lustful thoughts just because they *might* lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...That's throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it?  I've had puh-lenty of lusty thoughts in my life, and not once have they lead to rape, incest, or pedophilia.  I think I've got a proven track record for healthy lust.   

[AnimatedDirt]

But throwing out all lustful thoughts just because they *might* lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...That's throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it?  I've had puh-lenty of lusty thoughts in my life, and not once have they lead to rape, incest, or pedophilia.  I think I've got a proven track record for healthy lust.  

Are you saying that because your lust has never lead to any of these such things, no one elses has?  Remember, I never condemned the healthy lust...in its correct context, there's nothing wrong with it.  Of course you and I may differ on "correct context" however, we probably agree more than disagree on "healty lust" not being lust that results in rape...

[Tank]

Lustful thoughts are a part of sex

It leads to sex, yes, but it's not necessarily part of sex.  There's healthy lust and not-so-healthy lust.  One leads to sex another might lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...

Lustful thoughts are not a part of sex? Well if not what the hell are they? That's like saying the Saturn V first, second and third stages were not part of the moon landing because they didn't get to the moon! 

[Stevil]

But throwing out all lustful thoughts just because they *might* lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...That's throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it?  I've had puh-lenty of lusty thoughts in my life, and not once have they lead to rape, incest, or pedophilia.  I think I've got a proven track record for healthy lust.  

Are you saying that because your lust has never lead to any of these such things, no one elses has?

It is like the minority report movie.
We cannot judge and pre-emptively strike.
Lust is a healthy part of nature, without it we would never procreate.

[AnimatedDirt]

Lustful thoughts are a part of sex

It leads to sex, yes, but it's not necessarily part of sex.  There's healthy lust and not-so-healthy lust.  One leads to sex another might lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...

Lustful thoughts are not a part of sex? Well if not what the hell are they? That's like saying the Saturn V first, second and third stages were not part of the moon landing because they didn't get to the moon!  

I did say necessarily, didn't I?  I never said lustful thoughts are not part of sex.  I think I clarified my point in that some lust leads to what most of us would term unhealthy "sex"...

Lust is a healthy part of nature, without it we would never procreate.

We agree.  

[Whitney]

I'm going to refrain from saying many things right now, so I won't break rules or get kicked off this amazing forum...
But good sir, you cannot state your opinions as facts. It's what I dislike THE MOST of religious people.
My love is wonderful, joyful, sad, complicated, sometimes stressful and everything a human being is allowed to feel, but my love is NOT A SIN.

I'm sorry for offending you.  It was not my intention.  We are in the religion section of this forum and within a thread about a "Xtian Perception" and I'm giving my opinion.  In context of "Xtian" AND the OP citing a commonly known position of this religious book, saying, "Homosexual acts is sin" is quite spot on, factual...in context.  You may disagree.  We're not specifically discussing our position on the that subject, rather what it means that more and more are accepting.  I would humbly ask you go back and read from the start.  MAYBE you will see my position different or simply ask my position.

Again, I apologize for offending you.

I think it's simply a matter of fact that many parts of the Bible are offensive to gay people and that a Christian must view homosexuality as sin (even if they are a gay chrsitian).  The OP asked for a fundamental christian view and got it (well, a light version of it).  AD's view is much more tame than some of what you'll come across from Christians (in that he considers homosexuality just another sin and not a sin that is worse than other sins) and, more importantly, he's not set on limiting gay rights just because of his religious views.

[Sandra Craft]

The NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text: "looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."

Does this refer only to his sexual desire, or to the woman's as well?  I know it probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm curious.  If both of them have to be lusting in their hearts before its a sin, that's going to let a lot of men off the hook since most women catching a man looking at them lecherously are going to be thinking "What a creep", not "Yippee, I'm gonna get some!"

[Whitney]

The NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text: "looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."

Does this refer only to his sexual desire, or to the woman's as well?  I know it probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm curious.  If both of them have to be lusting in their hearts before its a sin, that's going to let a lot of men off the hook since most women catching a man looking at them lecherously are going to be thinking "What a creep", not "Yippee, I'm gonna get some!"

The interpretation I was always told was that basically fantasizing about a sin is the same as doing it; even if you never intended to actually act on the thought.   It would just be a sin on the part of the person actually committing what would amount to a thought crime; not the subject of the thought.  If you think about it in terms of there being an all knowing god who knows what you are thinking then it makes sense that unclean thoughts would be unfavorable....comparable to airing sinister thoughts out loud in a public space.

[AnimatedDirt]

The NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text: "looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."

Does this refer only to his sexual desire, or to the woman's as well?  I know it probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm curious.  If both of them have to be lusting in their hearts before its a sin, that's going to let a lot of men off the hook since most women catching a man looking at them lecherously are going to be thinking "What a creep", not "Yippee, I'm gonna get some!"

It refers to the person, be it male or female, that lusts.  It's a personal/secret type sin that's being talked about hence "in his heart".

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I think it's simply a matter of fact that many parts of the Bible are offensive to gay people and that a Christian must view homosexuality as sin (even if they are a gay chrsitian).  The OP asked for a fundamental christian view and got it (well, a light version of it).  AD's view is much more tame than some of what you'll come across from Christians (in that he considers homosexuality just another sin and not a sin that is worse than other sins) and, more importantly, he's not set on limiting gay rights just because of his religious views.

Another Christian perspective that also finds support in the New Testament is that Jesus "took away the sin of the world," so that God is simply no longer interested in searching out various sins, but desires to move past that to a relationship, for which faith is the initial step. An analogy would be a parent who, when the child was 15, was concerned about all the things the child was sneaking around doing, but when the child is 35, those things are no longer of interest, and the parent simply wants to have a visit.

Failure to see the progression in the Bible from rules to relationship often results in a distorted view of God, IMO.  It may be advisable for Christians to, as an experiment, remove the OT altogether and any references to it in the NT, and see what remains.  It's pretty much a story of redemption and relationship, unclouded by issues that controlled during the faith's "adolescence." But, like our relationship with our parents, it's sometimes hard to get over those things and move on to maturity.

[MadBomr101]

Does this refer only to his sexual desire, or to the woman's as well?  I know it probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm curious.  If both of them have to be lusting in their hearts before its a sin, that's going to let a lot of men off the hook since most women catching a man looking at them lecherously are going to be thinking "What a creep", not "Yippee, I'm gonna get some!"

For a vast majority of men, myself included, exactly the opposite is true.  If women would just get with the program on this, men would be a lot happier.   

[Sandra Craft]

The NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text: "looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."

Does this refer only to his sexual desire, or to the woman's as well?  I know it probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm curious.  If both of them have to be lusting in their hearts before its a sin, that's going to let a lot of men off the hook since most women catching a man looking at them lecherously are going to be thinking "What a creep", not "Yippee, I'm gonna get some!"

It refers to the person, be it male or female, that lusts.  It's a personal/secret type sin that's being talked about hence "in his heart".

The NIV interpretation seems oddly worded then.  Wouldn't the person giving the willful, calculated stare already be feeling desire, otherwise what would be the point of staring?  "That arouses desire" suggests something happening after the stare, something caused by the stare, which would not be the starers desire since the person staring is already in that state.