Lust and its Bad Rep

Terrywoodenpic · Nov 3, 2017

Skwim said:
Well, it certainly can be, and in the dictionaries I checked sexual lust is almost always mentioned first. As Merriam-Webster puts it:

"usually intense or unbridled sexual desire."

.

Only because sex is so high up everyones agenda.

Saint Frankenstein · Nov 3, 2017

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
Lust is sexual desire, and sexual desire is a good thing. Without sexual desire, we could not reproduce, and reproduction is God’s very first commandment to mankind. Therefore lust, on its own merit, cannot be a sin. Adultery, however, is not only a sin, but a very serious sin punishable by death. But a far greater sin is adding to or subtracting from Torah. Torah’s definition of adultery is very clear and specific, and is found at Vayyiq’ra/Leviticus 18:20:

וְאֶל־אֵשֶׁת עֲמִיתְךָ לֹא־תִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ לְזָרַע לְטָמְאָה־בָהּ׃
V’el-ʾéshet ʿămiyt’ḵa loʾ-tittén sh’ḵav’t’ḵa l’zaraʿ l’tam’ah-vah:

“And to the wife of your neighbor, you will not give your ejaculation for insemination to become defiled by her.”

Adultery is a crime that is exclusive to married women. The ONLY way a married man can commit adultery is if he inseminates another man’s wife. If a married man has sexual intercourse with a single woman it is not adultery. After all how could a man acquire a piylegesh/concubine without having sexual intercourse with her? For that matter, how could a married man acquire any additional wives without sexual intercourse?

If the hero of the chr-stian fairytale said a man is committing adultery by merely looking at a woman, and having a sexual desire for her, he is effectively adding to Torah, which is a far greater sin than adultery.

So married men are allowed to bang all the women they please as long as they don't ejaculate inside of other man's wife? And women aren't allowed to do the same? That's sexist tripe that treats women as property.

Skwim · Nov 3, 2017

Terrywoodenpic said:
Only because sex is so high up everyones agenda.

Which no doubt explains why "sexual lust" is the prevailing notion of "lust."

.
.

Rational Agnostic · Nov 4, 2017

Tmac said:
Actually man instituted the bond of marriage to prevent the alpha for impregnating all the females like in the rest of the animal kingdom.

Yes, but most religious men tend to be beta males (pastors have the lowest testosterone levels of all occupations), so it's common for them to be cuckolded by their wives.

Tmac · Nov 4, 2017

Hubert Farnsworth said:
Yes, but most religious men tend to be beta males (pastors have the lowest testosterone levels of all occupations), so it's common for them to be cuckolded by their wives.

Maybe religious males(whatever that is) but the ministers seem to have a hard time keeping it in their pants.

Rational Agnostic · Nov 4, 2017

Tmac said:
Maybe religious males(whatever that is) but the ministers seem to have a hard time keeping it in their pants.

I read a study indicating that ministers have the lowest testosterone levels of all males. Sure, there are exceptions, but in my experience this tends to be the case. Also, many ministers (based on my personal experience) tend to be obese, especially in the midsection, which is also a sign of low T.

Saint Frankenstein · Nov 4, 2017

Hubert Farnsworth said:
Yes, but most religious men tend to be beta males (pastors have the lowest testosterone levels of all occupations), so it's common for them to be cuckolded by their wives.

Do you have any evidence of that or are you just spewing nonsense that you got from some 4chan cesspit, as I suspect?

Milton Platt · Nov 4, 2017

Skwim said:
In another thread an RF member posted the following about the sin of lust.

"Pornography use isn't a new sin, it is simply a new technologically enabled manifestation of that old sin called lust."

and referred to Matthew 5:27-28

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

A few points

1. The Bible is quite straightforward in referring only to men. It says nothing about a woman looking after a man to lust after him and committing adultery with him already in her heart. Women are given bye here---lucky them?

2. The reason lust is a sin is that it amounts to a form of adultery.

a·dul·ter·y
əˈdəlt(ə)rē/
noun
noun: adultery; plural noun: adulteries
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.

But any such lust occurring among unmarried people would fail to meet the definition of adultery, and therefore not be a sin. Lust need not be a sin at all.

3. Is there anything intrinsically bad about lust? Keep in mind the Bible only damns it in the context of adultery.

lust
ləst/
noun: lust
1.very strong sexual desire.

and being a "very strong sexual desire" its only liability rests in an inability to keep it in check, resulting in an offense. But there are a lot of things a person can very strongly desire that may result in an offense. A very strong desire for money, A very strong desire for power. A very strong desire to be rid of one's mate. A very strong desire for prestige. Etc., etc.. BUT, these very same very strong desires may result in good outcomes and not offenses at all. So, to answer my own question No, there is nothing intrinsically bad about lust.

4. The only bad Bible-lust is that which is committed by a married man. Everyone else, go ahead and lust away. Just mind your manners.

.

No lust=no erection=no ejaculation=no pregnancy=end of human species.

Yohanan ben Yaaqov · Nov 5, 2017

Saint Frankenstein said:
So married men are allowed to bang all the women they please as long as they don't ejaculate inside of other man's wife? And women aren't allowed to do the same? That's sexist tripe that treats women as property.

Actually, a man is allowed to have as many contract wives and piylag’shiym, basically live in lovers, as he wishes. They all live with him on his property, they are all supported by him and all of their children are his. It is not a free pass for a married man to run around banging everything in sight. That would have been me between 1972 – 1988, but I was single at the time. Just for the record, polygamy is illegal in modern Israel, for whatever that’s worth.

Just a couple of other side points to your comment: with the exception of nocturnal emissions, aka wet dreams, which do result in ritual impurity, it is illegal for a man to ejaculate outside of a woman’s vagina; artificial insemination, if it is not the semen of her husband, is also considered adultery.

According to Torah both polygamy and polygyny are not only allowed but there are also several Mitz’vot exclusive to the children of multiple wives and concubines. No matter how many wives or concubines a man has, all of the children are his. If a woman has multiple male partners she has no way of knowing who the father of any of her children are, which basically makes her children nonexistent.

In Israelite culture both biological and tribal lineage, or genealogy, is determined exclusively from father to son. Females do not have any tribal or biological affiliation. When a female is born she is so-and-so daughter of so-and so of the tribe of such-and-such; when she marries she becomes so-and-so wife of so-and-so of the tribe of such-and-such. All of her children are the descendants of her husband’s lineage exclusively; she transfers no type of lineage whatsoever to any of her children.

It is really not difficult to see what a mess women with multiple partners actually is, all you have to do is watch television talk shows such as Maury Povich that have “who’s the father of my baby” shows all the time. I think it’s a crying shame when a woman has 15 or 20 different men DNA tested, and they all come back negative.

If you feel that God’s Law against adultery is so terrible, how would you feel if your wife became pregnant and you went through the entire 9 months of gestation with her right up until birth, only to find out it is not yours?

Many years ago I suspected my wife of cheating on me, but I had no way of proving it. Unfortunately, she indeed became pregnant right about that time. I had no way of knowing whether this child was mine or the product of her indiscretion. I prayed long and hard for her to have a miscarriage, and she did. That event served to reinforce my belief in God’s perfect Justice.

Faithofchristian · Nov 5, 2017

Skwim said:
In another thread an RF member posted the following about the sin of lust.

"Pornography use isn't a new sin, it is simply a new technologically enabled manifestation of that old sin called lust."

and referred to Matthew 5:27-28

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

A few points

1. The Bible is quite straightforward in referring only to men. It says nothing about a woman looking after a man to lust after him and committing adultery with him already in her heart. Women are given bye here---lucky them?

2. The reason lust is a sin is that it amounts to a form of adultery.

a·dul·ter·y
əˈdəlt(ə)rē/
noun
noun: adultery; plural noun: adulteries
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.

But any such lust occurring among unmarried people would fail to meet the definition of adultery, and therefore not be a sin. Lust need not be a sin at all.

3. Is there anything intrinsically bad about lust? Keep in mind the Bible only damns it in the context of adultery.

lust
ləst/
noun: lust
1.very strong sexual desire.

and being a "very strong sexual desire" its only liability rests in an inability to keep it in check, resulting in an offense. But there are a lot of things a person can very strongly desire that may result in an offense. A very strong desire for money, A very strong desire for power. A very strong desire to be rid of one's mate. A very strong desire for prestige. Etc., etc.. BUT, these very same very strong desires may result in good outcomes and not offenses at all. So, to answer my own question No, there is nothing intrinsically bad about lust.

4. The only bad Bible-lust is that which is committed by a married man. Everyone else, go ahead and lust away. Just mind your manners.

.

Your only showing your lack of knowledge of understanding what the Bible actually does say, on the subject of lust.

As for Adultery, whether it be a married man or a married woman.
Both will be found in Adultery.

"And the man that committed adultery with another man's wife, even he that committed adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" Lev 20:10

Lust is nothing, until it's fully conceived.

If I look upon a woman to lust after her, that is nothing. Until that lust becomes a reality, that I'm only with her, for whatever reason I purpose in my lust to have her.

Did I lust to her as my wife, there is nothing wrong in that, How else is a single man and single woman to come together if they have nothing to lust after each other for. They have the lust of their heart in love, to want to be with each other. There's nothing wrong in that.

If I see my Neighbour have something that I want and I lust to have it. I done no wrong.
Until I take it, Now my lust has come to be fully conceived in taking it

If married man or married woman lust after each other, they done nothing wrong.

Until that lust is fully conceived, and they are found in laying with each other,Now the lust which they had, is now come to be fully conceived, Now they have committed Adultery.

Are we to believe that God is going to convict us on our thoughts, No, Of course not.

It's when those thoughts become a reality, and you are found in doing what you thought on.
Now comes the sin, which leads to death.
James 1:15.

Rational Agnostic · Nov 5, 2017

Saint Frankenstein said:
Do you have any evidence of that or are you just spewing nonsense that you got from some 4chan cesspit, as I suspect?

It was a real peer-reviewed source if I remember correctly, but I'm too lazy to look it up again now.

Saint Frankenstein · Nov 5, 2017

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
Actually, a man is allowed to have as many contract wives and piylag’shiym, basically live in lovers, as he wishes. They all live with him on his property, they are all supported by him and all of their children are his. It is not a free pass for a married man to run around banging everything in sight. That would have been me between 1972 – 1988, but I was single at the time. Just for the record, polygamy is illegal in modern Israel, for whatever that’s worth.

Just a couple of other side points to your comment: with the exception of nocturnal emissions, aka wet dreams, which do result in ritual impurity, it is illegal for a man to ejaculate outside of a woman’s vagina; artificial insemination, if it is not the semen of her husband, is also considered adultery.

According to Torah both polygamy and polygyny are not only allowed but there are also several Mitz’vot exclusive to the children of multiple wives and concubines. No matter how many wives or concubines a man has, all of the children are his. If a woman has multiple male partners she has no way of knowing who the father of any of her children are, which basically makes her children nonexistent.

In Israelite culture both biological and tribal lineage, or genealogy, is determined exclusively from father to son. Females do not have any tribal or biological affiliation. When a female is born she is so-and-so daughter of so-and so of the tribe of such-and-such; when she marries she becomes so-and-so wife of so-and-so of the tribe of such-and-such. All of her children are the descendants of her husband’s lineage exclusively; she transfers no type of lineage whatsoever to any of her children.

It is really not difficult to see what a mess women with multiple partners actually is, all you have to do is watch television talk shows such as Maury Povich that have “who’s the father of my baby” shows all the time. I think it’s a crying shame when a woman has 15 or 20 different men DNA tested, and they all come back negative.

If you feel that God’s Law against adultery is so terrible, how would you feel if your wife became pregnant and you went through the entire 9 months of gestation with her right up until birth, only to find out it is not yours?

Many years ago I suspected my wife of cheating on me, but I had no way of proving it. Unfortunately, she indeed became pregnant right about that time. I had no way of knowing whether this child was mine or the product of her indiscretion. I prayed long and hard for her to have a miscarriage, and she did. That event served to reinforce my belief in God’s perfect Justice.

All this does is confirm that it is just archaic sexist crap. You are saying that women have no identity outside of men and that men are allowed to have as many women as they please to keep as brood mares. Your aside about your wife having a miscarriage that you prayed for is completely disgusting and says a lot about you and your "god". For shame, if you have any.

Saint Frankenstein · Nov 5, 2017

Hubert Farnsworth said:
It was a real peer-reviewed source if I remember correctly, but I'm too lazy to look it up again now.

Disregarded, then.

Faithofchristian · Nov 17, 2017

Lust and its Bad Rep.

Lust isn't just about sex.
Lust can be about many things that a person desires to have. But it's not a sin to lust.
For instance, you lust to have a new car.
is that a sin?
Of course not.
Let's say, you see a woman and she sees you, and both lust to be with each other.
Is that a sin?
Of course not.

But if you lust after a woman that is Married or a woman lust after a man who is Married.
Now thats a sin.and have committed Adultery with her/him already in their heart.

Now can a man and woman who are single lust for each other without it being a sin.Yes

How else is a single man and a single woman to come together, if they do not have the lust of desire of love, in their heart to be with each other.

Faithofchristian · Nov 17, 2017

Skwim said:
In another thread an RF member posted the following about the sin of lust.

"Pornography use isn't a new sin, it is simply a new technologically enabled manifestation of that old sin called lust."

and referred to Matthew 5:27-28

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

A few points

1. The Bible is quite straightforward in referring only to men. It says nothing about a woman looking after a man to lust after him and committing adultery with him already in her heart. Women are given bye here---lucky them?

2. The reason lust is a sin is that it amounts to a form of adultery.

a·dul·ter·y
əˈdəlt(ə)rē/
noun
noun: adultery; plural noun: adulteries
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.

But any such lust occurring among unmarried people would fail to meet the definition of adultery, and therefore not be a sin. Lust need not be a sin at all.

3. Is there anything intrinsically bad about lust? Keep in mind the Bible only damns it in the context of adultery.

lust
ləst/
noun: lust
1.very strong sexual desire.

and being a "very strong sexual desire" its only liability rests in an inability to keep it in check, resulting in an offense. But there are a lot of things a person can very strongly desire that may result in an offense. A very strong desire for money, A very strong desire for power. A very strong desire to be rid of one's mate. A very strong desire for prestige. Etc., etc.. BUT, these very same very strong desires may result in good outcomes and not offenses at all. So, to answer my own question No, there is nothing intrinsically bad about lust.

4. The only bad Bible-lust is that which is committed by a married man. Everyone else, go ahead and lust away. Just mind your manners.

.

Ok, Let's take Matthew 5:27,28.

Verse 27--"You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shalt not commit Adultery"

In case you didn't notice, this includes both men and women who are Married.

Now as for Verse 28 --"But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart"

This being a woman who is Married that whether the man is Married or single, if they lust after a woman that is Married, has committed adultery with her in his heart.

This also goes for a man who is Married that whether the woman is Married or single, If they lust after a man that is Married, has committed adultery with him in her heart.

Ok so let's for say, that a person will say, But Verse 28 doesn't say anything about a woman lusting after a man.

A brain with Common Sense will tell you, it goes both ways.
God gave to everyone a brain to use with Common Sense.
God is not going to spell everything out, for people when people has a brain to use with Common Sense to use, to figure out that it goes both ways with men and women. Who are Married.

Kelly of the Phoenix · Nov 17, 2017

Grandliseur said:
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these : fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, 21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Jesus said he wouldn't watch his hands and hung out with unclean people, making him unclean. Jesus inspired a lot of idolatry (depending on one's POV). Magic powers can be seen as sorcery. Jesus managed to rile up a lot of people, causing enmity, strife, jealousy, wrath, division, etc. Jesus attends a wedding party. Jesus provides epic wine at said party.

Combine that with the fact Jesus said people using the word "fool" would send them to hell and, having short term memory loss, called people fools, and it's obvious Jesus is in hell. Whooops.

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
Adultery, however, is not only a sin, but a very serious sin punishable by death.

Not in the US.

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
If a married man has sexual intercourse with a single woman it is not adultery.

A convenient definition, to be sure, and one that wouldn't impress the Mrs. at all.

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
After all how could a man acquire a piylegesh/concubine without having sexual intercourse with her?

Why is he allowed to do it but not the Mrs.?

Tmac said:
Actually man instituted the bond of marriage to prevent the alpha for impregnating all the females like in the rest of the animal kingdom.

And that doesn't work out 100%.

Grandliseur said:
The KJV Strong's explanation for the term is:
05331:
5331 pharmakeia far-mak-i'-ah from 5332; medication ("pharmacy"), i.e. (by extension) magic (literally or figuratively):--sorcery, witchcraft. see GREEK for 5332 Even today there is a difference between those who are illusionists and those who actually do magic, who have a bond with a demon to help them in their art.

So, when Egyptian priests conjure up snakes, it's sorcery, but when Moses does it, its' a miracle?

Grandliseur said:
Before my mother married, she is quite dead now for some years, she and her friends worked the 3 legged table to communicate with the spirits - being young and not knowing better. It stopped working when my father entered the room. After he left, they asked it why? and, the reason given was that he was a practicing Christian.

Spirit: "I am worked by the actions of the participants and none of y'all wanted to get caught, so 'I' shut up."

Real magic, I assume, wouldn't require a board game at Wal-Mart to work anyway.

Grandliseur said:
The following video is somewhat entertaining while illustrating modern sorcery:

Yeah. Now study filmmaking and you'll laugh too.

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
Actually, a man is allowed to have as many contract wives and piylag’shiym, basically live in lovers, as he wishes. They all live with him on his property, they are all supported by him and all of their children are his. It is not a free pass for a married man to run around banging everything in sight.

The last sentence in the quote seems to contradict the first.

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
If a woman has multiple male partners she has no way of knowing who the father of any of her children are, which basically makes her children nonexistent.

Nowadays, though, we have this thing called a paternity test. Plus, what a douche opinion of children who had no say in the matter. Parents CAN care for children not biologically theirs, you know. Baby Moses would've been crocodile food had adoption not been a thing.

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
In Israelite culture both biological and tribal lineage, or genealogy, is determined exclusively from father to son.

LOL, so the only verifiable relationship (that a child came from a particular mother) doesn't count but a father's unproven contribution is?

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
All of her children are the descendants of her husband’s lineage exclusively; she transfers no type of lineage whatsoever to any of her children.

Can't get mitochondria without the mom.

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
It is really not difficult to see what a mess women with multiple partners actually is, all you have to do is watch television talk shows such as Maury Povich that have “who’s the father of my baby” shows all the time.

Unless she has a virgin birth, it took the guy you say can screw whoever he wants to create this problem. But let's **** shame only half of the relationship, right?

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
If you feel that God’s Law against adultery is so terrible, how would you feel if your wife became pregnant and you went through the entire 9 months of gestation with her right up until birth, only to find out it is not yours?

As there are men who can be supportive of any child in the family, apparently you shouldn't project your male insecurities on all males?

Yohanan ben Yaaqov said:
I had no way of knowing whether this child was mine or the product of her indiscretion. I prayed long and hard for her to have a miscarriage, and she did. That event served to reinforce my belief in God’s perfect Justice.

No, it makes people with this attitude a monster. The child could've been yours and you "killed" it because you're insecure. What sicko prays for this? How many children of men who were allowed to screw whoever they wanted die because of similar prayers? How many progeny of yours are alive that you can verify? If the children belong to the father, should people pray to have YOUR progeny die? I mean, if you put your money where your religion is?

Faithofchristian said:
Lust is nothing, until it's fully conceived.

Not according to Jesus, where even a "daaaaaaaang, she's hot" is enough to put you to hellfire.

Faithofchristian · Nov 17, 2017

Kelly of the Phoenix said:
Jesus said he wouldn't watch his hands and hung out with unclean people, making him unclean. Jesus inspired a lot of idolatry (depending on one's POV). Magic powers can be seen as sorcery. Jesus managed to rile up a lot of people, causing enmity, strife, jealousy, wrath, division, etc. Jesus attends a wedding party. Jesus provides epic wine at said party.

Combine that with the fact Jesus said people using the word "fool" would send them to hell and, having short term memory loss, called people fools, and it's obvious Jesus is in hell. Whooops.

Not in the US.

A convenient definition, to be sure, and one that wouldn't impress the Mrs. at all.

Why is he allowed to do it but not the Mrs.?

And that doesn't work out 100%.

So, when Egyptian priests conjure up snakes, it's sorcery, but when Moses does it, its' a miracle?

Moses didn't do anything of himself,
it all was done by God thru Moses.

Spirit: "I am worked by the actions of the participants and none of y'all wanted to get caught, so 'I' shut up."

Real magic, I assume, wouldn't require a board game at Wal-Mart to work anyway.

Yeah. Now study filmmaking and you'll laugh too.

The last sentence in the quote seems to contradict the first.

Nowadays, though, we have this thing called a paternity test. Plus, what a douche opinion of children who had no say in the matter. Parents CAN care for children not biologically theirs, you know. Baby Moses would've been crocodile food had adoption not been a thing.

LOL, so the only verifiable relationship (that a child came from a particular mother) doesn't count but a father's unproven contribution is?

Can't get mitochondria without the mom.

Unless she has a virgin birth, it took the guy you say can screw whoever he wants to create this problem. But let's **** shame only half of the relationship, right?

As there are men who can be supportive of any child in the family, apparently you shouldn't project your male insecurities on all males?

No, it makes people with this attitude a monster. The child could've been yours and you "killed" it because you're insecure. What sicko prays for this? How many children of men who were allowed to screw whoever they wanted die because of similar prayers? How many progeny of yours are alive that you can verify? If the children belong to the father, should people pray to have YOUR progeny die? I mean, if you put your money where your religion is?

Not according to Jesus, where even a "daaaaaaaang, she's hot" is enough to put you to hellfire.

How do you come by that ?

Kelly of the Phoenix · Nov 18, 2017

Faithofchristian said:
How do you come by that ?

I read the texts.

Lust and its Bad Rep

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar

Skwim

Veteran Member

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member

Tmac

Active Member

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member

Yohanan ben Yaaqov

Member

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member