|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Looking on a woman to lust
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
There can be few dominical utterances which have caused more guilt, distress and bewilderment than Matthew 5:27-8 “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”.
One of the first things which strikes us about it these days is its gender specificity - why only a man looking on a woman, and not vice versa?
For this and other reasons (eg its heterosexuality) a liberal view of the Bible will dismiss or ignore this pericope, but for anyone trying to take the warning seriously, there appear to be a number of options.
1. It is to be taken at face value, as the overwhelming majority of exegetes and ordinary Christians have always done, which raises the obvious objection that it is about as realistic to command a healthy man with the normal allocation of hormones to feel no interest, however fleeting and unmanifested, in any woman except his wife, as it is to tell a person with a healthy appetite to feel no desire for any food which he happens to see except his or her own.
2. It is highly hyperbolical, as the context provided by the subsequent verses 29-30 indicates, and therefore is not to be taken literally, but consists of just a general call to sexual integrity (eg don’t objectify or commodify people as sexual products).
3. It actually refers not to the mere unavoidable recognition of a woman’s sexual attractiveness, but specifically to an attitude that one would commit adultery with the woman if given the opportunity.
The problem with this third interpretation is that it permits a man to fantasise to his heart’s content about a woman, as long as he assures himself that under no circumstances would he attempt to play out the fantasy in practice, which would appear to militate against the spirit, if not the letter, of Christ’s command.
I hasten to add that I am, of course, an exceptionally spiritual Christian who has never experienced any perplexity or difficulty in this area myself, and I am only posting this on behalf of a worldly, fleshly friend who prefers to remain anonymous, and who I hope might be helped by any responses.
Actually, what really got me thinking about it was a book I came across which optimistically claimed to be able to train a Christian man to never again look at a woman inappropriately.
It made me think of those immortal lines in Adrian Plass:-
”Gerald asked Mrs Flushpool if she used to go swimming in the natural. She replied fervently that her bodily flesh would never again rouse any man to a fever of sensual lust. Mr Flushpool opened his mouth to say, ‘Amen to that!’ but thought twice and shut it”.
[ 05. January 2015, 21:04: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I would kind of opt for #3 with the rider that fantasising is mental adultery, whether one has the intention of following through or not. The old adage, "you can't stop the birds flying round your head but you can stop them nesting there" also springs to mind.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
The word 'ogle' is somewhat archaic now, but is I think the kind of behaviour that's being referred to. In other words, if a man is looking at a woman lustfully (or vice versa) it is in fact apparent to observers.
quote:
The problem with this third interpretation is that it permits a man to fantasise to his heart’s content about a woman, as long as he assures himself that under no circumstances would he attempt to play out the fantasy in practice, which would appear to militate against the spirit, if not the letter, of Christ’s command.
That would be a problem with the first interpretation as well, although not the second. But that kind of mental trickery is a piece of self-deception - a person can't establish what they would do given an opportunity simply by reciting a form of words to themselves.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I'm with Matt Black on this. The (possibly) unavoidable recognition of a woman's sexual attractiveness is one thing. Dwelling on it in some fantasising way - even if you say you would never act on it IRL is quite another, and as much to be avoided as actual adultery.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I can't find an authoritative source for this on the quick, but in Catholicism I believe this is generally considered in a "challenge - response" manner, where the moral value generally attaches to the response rather than the challenge.
So the initial lustful thought is a "challenge", and as an impulse from our fallen nature not normally something we would be blamed for. The question is what we do next, what sort of "response" we consciously or habitually give. Do we reject the thought and try to drag our attention back to other matters? Then we do not sin, perhaps even merit. Do we stick with the thought and run with it, at least in our imagination? Then we do sin, perhaps even mortally.
Lot of other factors play into this, like the habits we form, whether we avoid near occasions of sin, etc. But the basic point is that we only sin (or more precisely, we are only culpable for our sins) if we make some kind of real decision. And often illicit sexual imagination arises more or less "spontaneously", not really by choice, hence we will not be held to account for that. Letting such imaginations continue unrestrained, or even fanning them, is a choice however, and hence we are responsible for it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
IngoB
Pretty good analysis. I liken it to Eastern ideas about attachment. Thus thoughts come and go, not (apparently) under my control, as with emotions and feelings also. However, if I wilfully attach myself to one or more of them, then I have taken a kind of ego path, 'that thought is mine, and I will water it to make it grow' (a la Blake).
On the other hand, I do sympathize with people who have obsessive thought patterns, as they are incredibly difficult to shift. It can seem as if the thought pattern owns the person, rather than the other way round.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Concupiscence isn't sin.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
I always thought that Jesus was saying "Stop trying to define what *everyone else* does as "sin" and what *you* do as "only natural" or "healthy" or "human".
Which I think makes this thread quite ironic.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On the other hand, I do sympathize with people who have obsessive thought patterns, as they are incredibly difficult to shift. It can seem as if the thought pattern owns the person, rather than the other way round.
Again, also this would mean that real choice - and hence culpability - is diminished, perhaps even to the point where there is none. The problem is of course that we are very good at inventing excuses for ourselves. Nevertheless, often we are in fact excused. There is an entire "practical psychology" hidden in the old Catholic moral manuals and treaties, which in my opinion is both very realistic and rather humane. In particular the question of "habit formation" is highly interesting in this.
The real shame is that one nowadays mostly has to piece this together from bits and pieces. I wish that I knew of a "go to" reference for all this stuff, and preferably not one in Latin from the 17th century...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ged
Apprentice
# 16049
|
Posted
Background: faithful (secular sense) bloke married for six and a half years. Had the usual (I believe) experience with porn as a teen. Mostly sorted, largely thanks to an inspired paternal intervention. The memories of habits remain challenging nonetheless!
I wonder if a very simple, memorable comment of our vicar might help: basically, if we see pretty ladies int' street, we ought to look only once (and ideally not at her arse from behind, I guess). In my experience of trying this I seem to have found a sort of perverse (sic) satisfaction.
I, too, like IngoB's analysis.
--------------------
"I really agonised a bit."
Posts: 5 | From: Gloucester, UK | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
It just makes me contemplate the value of "Hung for a sheep as a lamb" ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
(Actually, I tend towards a combination of Matt Black's view and the illustrative hyperbole reading).
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
There's a difference between having an idea cross your mind and entertaining that idea.
This applies not just to sexual thoughts, but other kinds too, such as aggression. I have moments when I feel like strangling someone. If I push the idea out of my mind, I have not sinned. If I wallow in it, then I have.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
You can train yourself to do a certain amount, eg. look away, try to think of something else. When I get depressing thoughts in the middle of the night, eg. remembering and obsessing about something upsetting that happened in the past, I try to use distraction training to get myself through it and concentrate my mind on something happier. So I believe it can be done in other situations too, but only if you really want to. I suspect in the 'looking in lust' case, the person concerned doesn't really want to!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Moo: This applies not just to sexual thoughts, but other kinds too, such as aggression. I have moments when I feel like strangling someone. If I push the idea out of my mind, I have not sinned. If I wallow in it, then I have.
I find that when someone does something nasty to me, it really helps me psychologically to think very aggressive thoughts towards this person for a moment. Often it lasts less than a second, but I consciously choose to allow them for this time. To me, this much better than letting these feelings simmer on subconsciously. After I've recognised my aggressive feelings in this way, it's very easy for me to let go of them.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Did Jesus really mean to put Hollywood, TV, and book and magazines out of business? And, maybe most of advertising too?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Quite possibly, had he had them in mind at that time, but not necessarily for this reason alone.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For this and other reasons (eg its heterosexuality) a liberal view of the Bible will dismiss or ignore this pericope, but for anyone trying to take the warning seriously, there appear to be a number of options.
Really? As a liberal in terms of scripture, I take it very seriously and don't in the least dismiss it. I'm not sure why any liberal would? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
However, my own no doubt liberal and therefore dismissable view of this scripture, given its context is, it is yet another of Jesus's reminders to the legalists that even those who think they're 'within the law' and one of God's little sunbeams, are still in fact just sinners like the rest of us.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For this and other reasons (eg its heterosexuality) a liberal view of the Bible will dismiss or ignore this pericope, but for anyone trying to take the warning seriously, there appear to be a number of options.
Really? As a liberal in terms of scripture, I take it very seriously and don't in the least dismiss it. I'm not sure why any liberal would?
Could this be a gender difference?
A liberal male may assert that sexual interest is normal and that stigmatizing it is narrow minded. But a liberal female does not at all appreciate the male habit of staring at every attractive woman who walks by.
As for its male orientation and heterosexuality, I think the simple answer is that historically and cross-culturally the overt sexual interest that men display for any attractive woman has been an acknowledged problem. It demeans women and causes fights among men. Men sometimes murder other men who look lustfully at their wives. Wars have been fought over it.
While in theory the same principle should apply to the female desire for men, as well as homosexual desire, these things haven't been as problematic in practice. I think that research shows that there are gender differences when it comes to the sexual response to visual stimuli.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Even that seems to be sin:
LeRoc wrote
quote:
I find that when someone does something nasty to me, it really helps me psychologically to think very aggressive thoughts towards this person for a moment. Often it lasts less than a second, but I consciously choose to allow them for this time. To me, this much better than letting these feelings simmer on subconsciously. After I've recognised my aggressive feelings in this way, it's very easy for me to let go of them.
Matthew 5:21-22 NET
“You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder,’ and ‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’ But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Sounds like thoughtcrime to me.
I think people should always consider their actions carfully.
As far as fantasy goes its really not important unless you turn them into actions.
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Slippery slope, anyone?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Quoted by footwasher: But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment.
If God didn't want me to be angry at anyone, maybe He shouldn't have put so many stoopid people on the world ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
BTW I really like the last part of the text you quoted "whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell". To me this is a clear indication that Jesus was hyperboling, so coming back to the original topic, I go mostly with Kaplan Corday's interpretation #2, with a bit of #3 thrown in. I also liked Anselmina's explication.
Fool. Fool. Fool.
(This isn't directed at you, just testing something out )
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Naif that I am, I would have thought that it makes some difference whether either you or the woman you're lusting about are already married.
If not, where's the adultery?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
I'd tend to go with don't entertain the thought.
When I get the first inkling, I tell myself, "Oh, oh! Don't go there...". It comes under forming good habits.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
'Tis fornication, then.
[reply to Alogon]
[ 09. May 2012, 15:07: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
It seems to me that the passage tends to trivialize adultery. If adultery is no worse than casual lust, then it's not much of a crime, as common as dirt.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems to me that the passage tends to trivialize adultery. If adultery is no worse than casual lust, then it's not much of a crime, as common as dirt.
I agree. Its like....thinking about murder and actualy commiting a murder. Two VERY different things. A bible verse that claims thinking and doing are as bad as each other makes no sense to me.
[ 09. May 2012, 15:33: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Back to front IMO: it's about raising the bar, not lowering it.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems to me that the passage tends to trivialize adultery. If adultery is no worse than casual lust, then it's not much of a crime, as common as dirt.
It's not that adultery is no worse than casual lust; it's that casual lust is as bad as adultery.
George Spigot's confusion above is understandable considering that secular society is generally unclear about the differences between sin and crime.
[ 09. May 2012, 15:42: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not that adultery is no worse than casual lust; it's that casual lust is as bad as adultery.
I'm going to have to go away and think about that sentence for a while.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems to me that the passage tends to trivialize adultery. If adultery is no worse than casual lust, then it's not much of a crime, as common as dirt.
It's not that adultery is no worse than casual lust; it's that casual lust is as bad as adultery.
Certainly, as significant. Which is why, I suppose, we ask God to forgive us for our sins 'in thought, word and deed'.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems to me that the passage tends to trivialize adultery. If adultery is no worse than casual lust, then it's not much of a crime, as common as dirt.
I agree. Its like....thinking about murder and actualy commiting a murder. Two VERY different things. A bible verse that claims thinking and doing are as bad as each other makes no sense to me.
Taking the passage in its wider context, the point is that righteousness is not fulfilled merely by refraining from murder if your heart is full of the kind of stuff that can lead to murder, nor is it fulfilled by merely refraining from physical adultery if your heart is full of the kind of stuff that goes with adultery.
It is a tough message, and for me the answer is not simply that I must aim for a higher standard (though sometimes I probably should), but that I need to receive the forgiveness (and ultimately, I hope, the perfect wholeness) which comes only as a gift of grace from God.
The "as bad as" discussion is not specially helpful, I think, it's more that both the thought that might (and in some people does) lead to the act is dangerous as well as the act itself. It isn't just as bad to touch a live wire in the home as it is to touch the overhead wire on the railway - but both of them can be fatal.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Could this be a gender difference?
A liberal male may assert that sexual interest is normal and that stigmatizing it is narrow minded. But a liberal female does not at all appreciate the male habit of staring at every attractive woman who walks by.
As for its male orientation and heterosexuality, I think the simple answer is that historically and cross-culturally the overt sexual interest that men display for any attractive woman has been an acknowledged problem. It demeans women and causes fights among men. Men sometimes murder other men who look lustfully at their wives. Wars have been fought over it.
While in theory the same principle should apply to the female desire for men, as well as homosexual desire, these things haven't been as problematic in practice. I think that research shows that there are gender differences when it comes to the sexual response to visual stimuli.
Sure, there are gender differences, but it's highly problematic to generalize about all men and all women based on them. Even all liberal men and all liberal women. I, a liberal woman, didn't especially appreciate the blatant shows of male lust I received from strangers on the street when I was young, but I'm turning 50 this year and very much enjoy the more subtle and less frequently displayed appreciation of my appearance I receive now. It won't last forever, so I'm enjoying it while I can.
Beyond that, I'm with Anselmina. Why Kaplan Corday and others insist on yanking this verse out of context I don't understand. This section is introduced in verse 17 with Jesus talking about how he has come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and then this one little part comes in a list of things where Jesus refers to a specific instruction and then says the point is to live up to a higher ideal, not merely fulfill the letter of the law. The section culminates with "love your enemies" and "be perfect."
Matthew 5 justifies a liberal reading of scripture, telling us not to merely look at the words on the page but to seek the higher ideal they point toward.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The late David Kossof wrote a poem/prayer about his delight in watching air hostesses during as flight.
The gist was that we can thank God for for beauty.
I think it becomes lust when we don't want to include God in our thoughts.
In Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, the narrator has an epiphany looking at a beautiful young girl. He isn't overcome with desire for her; he sees her as a thing of beauty only, and this triggers a kind of religious or philosophical awakening.
Noting a person's beauty, enjoying it, appreciating it, is one thing. Fantasizing for the next half-hour about what you'd like to do to their body is a very different thing.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
George Spigot's confusion above is understandable considering that secular society is generally unclear about the differences between sin and crime.
You are right of course. Or in my case my view that sin does not exist.
So would christians generally say that while a person might see thinking about doing something wrong and doing something wrong as not the same God would see both as sins and therefore just as wrong as each other?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not that adultery is no worse than casual lust; it's that casual lust is as bad as adultery.
Why would that be? Does breaking promises and risking the destruction of a relationship or two count for nothing?
The way I see it, Jesus is giving counsels of perfection in this chapter with the implication that we should work on our own imperfections before pointing the finger at others.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not that adultery is no worse than casual lust; it's that casual lust is as bad as adultery.
Why would that be?
I think there is some hyperbole in play here.
It doesn't make sense to literally equate these kinds of things. Morality is seldom a black/white dichotomy. Instead there are infinite shades of better and worse.
Jesus is just saying that visual lust puts you in the same neck of the woods as adulterous actions, but exactly how bad it is depends on too many factors to enumerate in a pithy statement.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not that adultery is no worse than casual lust; it's that casual lust is as bad as adultery.
Why would that be? Does breaking promises and risking the destruction of a relationship or two count for nothing?
The way I see it, Jesus is giving counsels of perfection in this chapter with the implication that we should work on our own imperfections before pointing the finger at others.
I'll talk about my relationship here and say that casual sec is not as bad to me as cheating. My partner had some casual sex before we met. I'm talking like 4 months beforehand. I wasn't thrilled with that but. I did look more at hus past habits of being faithful to his exes than those trysts. One of them still is on his facebook and while in a relationship, she is loosey-goosey and would sleep with him probably if offered the chance. Since I trust him, I don't worry about it.
The thing is, we are in a celibate relationship. I don't believe in sec before marriage. We live together as he is struggling financially and lost his place to live, plus has medical issues. I feel better he can relax and I can be close by should another ER visit have to happen.
People are very unhappy with my decision that find out so I keep it rather low key.
Since men have 20 times more testosterone than women, it makes sense they generally speaking wise struggle with lust more. I don't mind if he looks at a lady, but going off to spanking the monkey over her breaks my heart.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The late David Kossof wrote a poem/prayer about his delight in watching air hostesses during as flight.
The gist was that we can thank God for for beauty.
I think it becomes lust when we don't want to include God in our thoughts.
I agree with the thoughts expressed in this product. Arses are wonderfull, thank you Jesus. Amen.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So would christians generally say that while a person might see thinking about doing something wrong and doing something wrong as not the same God would see both as sins and therefore just as wrong as each other?
'Thinking about' can cover a range of possibilities.
Take as an example: 'this dog is thinking about running onto the pitch, stealing the ball, and biting the umpire in the leg'. That can mean that the dog is considering the matter as an abstract possibility. On the other hand, it can mean that the dog intends to embark on that course of action as soon as an opportunity presents itself.
I don't think one has to be religious to think that the latter is about as morally culpable as actually embarking on the course of action.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I take the view that Jesus was being somewhat satirical in Matthew 5:27-30, and my reason for saying this is not wishful thinking or "that's just how I want to read it", but because of the internal logic and overall context of the passage.
quote:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
There seems to be a contradiction in this passage. On the one hand Jesus talks about the sinfulness of the heart, but on the other he suggests that organs and limbs of the physical body can actually cause someone to sin. If someone looks at a woman to lust after her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart, the implication being that sin is a problem of the inner man, which is expressed through the use of the body, in this case the eyes. But if such a man should follow the advice to pluck out his eye(s), would this solve the problem of his sin? Well obviously not! But the implication seems to be that only irreversible physical restraint is required in order to avoid the judgment of God. Physical restraint clearly cannot deal with a "heart problem".
So either this is a contradiction (and therefore the Bible is not worth bothering with; to paraphrase and apply another saying of Jesus: "an idea divided against itself cannot stand") or we need to look a bit deeper. As someone who "believes in the Bible", I feel compelled to go the latter route.
The self-mutilation saying is clearly an example of the reductio ad absurdum method of argumentation. Jesus is following legalism through to its logical absurd conclusion. Of course, it's rather disturbing that such a passage could actually be (and has actually been) taken literally by some unstable believers in their spiritual zeal. But perhaps the seriousness of legalism requires this kind of approach in order to get through to people that the solution to sin is not "try harder" or "be more committed", but receive the grace of God, which transforms the heart.
Later in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus explained that "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit". This confirms that evil actions are the outworking of an evil heart, and not vice versa. Therefore the "looking and lusting" is a manifestation of the adultery that is already there in the heart, hence: "...he has already committed adultery..."
So the implied solution is not the imposition of a desperately obsessive scheme of mental discipline and introspection, but honestly asking why the adultery is there in the heart in the first place. Is it really to do with a general attitude of being overly impressed with the female anatomy, or is it more to do with other problems that stir up sexual immorality, such as a broken marriage, involuntary celibacy (whether in marriage or outside marriage), a history of sexual abuse, just sheer pride (i.e. wanting to "make conquests" for reasons of egotism) etc...? Just taking the proverbial "cold shower" route and gritting one's teeth doesn't exactly solve these deep-rooted problems. To indulge in evangelical Christian jargon: only the grace of God can do it.
I don't see this passage as implying any kind of legalistic response, but it is rather suggesting that deeper questions need to be asked.
Finally, "looking at a woman" is not the same as "looking at an image of a woman". I don't believe that this saying condemns all so called "erotic art". Of course, erotica and pornography are ill-defined, and I am certainly not defending porn. But really, is it sin to linger while looking at Manet's Olympia or Cabanel's Birth of Venus? I think not, in the same way that meditating on the literal meaning of Song of Solomon cannot be sin.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For this and other reasons (eg its heterosexuality) a liberal view of the Bible will dismiss or ignore this pericope, but for anyone trying to take the warning seriously, there appear to be a number of options.
I'm sure you had an actual point after your smug slap in the face of "liberals," as if we can't or won't take the Gospel seriously because we're supposedly fixated on some sort of sexual libertinism.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'Thinking about' can cover a range of possibilities.
Take as an example: 'this dog is thinking about running onto the pitch, stealing the ball, and biting the umpire in the leg'. That can mean that the dog is considering the matter as an abstract possibility. On the other hand, it can mean that the dog intends to embark on that course of action as soon as an opportunity presents itself.
I don't think one has to be religious to think that the latter is about as morally culpable as actually embarking on the course of action.
I rather hope that most religious people wouldn't confuse a situation in which no harm is done with one in which the course of the game may be altered and the umpire is on his way to hospital courtesy of the local NHS Ambulance Trust. No victim - no worry.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not that adultery is no worse than casual lust; it's that casual lust is as bad as adultery.
Why would that be? Does breaking promises and risking the destruction of a relationship or two count for nothing?
The way I see it, Jesus is giving counsels of perfection in this chapter with the implication that we should work on our own imperfections before pointing the finger at others.
I think that's part of it. Jesus clearly speaks in the Gospels toward an attitude that the Pharisees have that they are beyond reproach because they follow the letter of the Law (and the letter of law built around the Law).
But I think, also, that there's another message. I think of all the unintended consequences that the entertainment of sinful notions may have. You may say that you have a firm intention never to actually cheat on your spouse, and that you're only looking and engaging in some harmless fantasy. But much like the act of envy or coveting, what may start as an unacted-upon feeling has a way of manifesting itself in one's actions through the subconscious.
If you habitually lust after someone other than your spouse, are you more or less likely to treat your spouse with love and respect? What kind of damage could it do to your relationship and to your family if what starts as daydreaming about an affair grows into resenting your spouse for not being attractive enough or sexual enough or youthful enough? Might you get into more fights? (and who hasn't gotten into a fight about one thing when his or her real motive is something different entirely?) Might you ignore your spouse in favor of other friends, other hobbies?
Perhaps lusting doesn't cause immediate harm, but lust is like a snowball rolling down hill which, left unchecked, will grow larger and larger until it is a destructive force beyond your reckoning.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There can be few dominical utterances which have caused more guilt, distress and bewilderment than Matthew 5:27-8 “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”.
It is important to consider the context of the statement (and even if Jesus actually said it). The previous bit is about making friends or reconciling with someone upset enough to drag you into court and get you jailed, and the following bit is the lines about plucking your eye out or chopping your hand off if they cause you to sin.
I hardly think that Jesus meant that we should literally do and think these things. It is called hyperbole, and it is over the top, so as to make a point. He is referencing universal human truths: that we all think about doing things we oughtn't do, including sexy thoughts about people we shouldn't consider sex with, and we have all done things with our eyes and hands that almost suggest we can't control ourselves. I think he's telling us that just because we don't actually do the naughty things we dream about, we shouldn't be haughty and righteous. Nothing more. Thus: it is universal to admire and at least lean in lusty directions when looking at the opposite sex, just let's try to control ourselves and try to at least act like civilized people who have some standards.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems to me that the passage tends to trivialize adultery. If adultery is no worse than casual lust, then it's not much of a crime, as common as dirt.
I agree. Its like....thinking about murder and actualy commiting a murder. Two VERY different things. A bible verse that claims thinking and doing are as bad as each other makes no sense to me.
Taking the passage in its wider context, the point is that righteousness is not fulfilled merely by refraining from murder if your heart is full of the kind of stuff that can lead to murder, nor is it fulfilled by merely refraining from physical adultery if your heart is full of the kind of stuff that goes with adultery.
It is a tough message, and for me the answer is not simply that I must aim for a higher standard (though sometimes I probably should), but that I need to receive the forgiveness (and ultimately, I hope, the perfect wholeness) which comes only as a gift of grace from God.
The "as bad as" discussion is not specially helpful, I think, it's more that both the thought that might (and in some people does) lead to the act is dangerous as well as the act itself. It isn't just as bad to touch a live wire in the home as it is to touch the overhead wire on the railway - but both of them can be fatal.
Yes, it's important to see this as part of the larger context of the sermon on the mount, where Jesus is laying out what ethics look like in the Kingdom of God. Overall, what you see is a movement from an external ethic that's focused only on "looking good", and an internal ethic that's coming out of your core identity as a child of God. It's about transformation, becoming a "new creation".
Two books that have been of particular use for me are Glen Stassen's Living the Sermon on the Mount and Dallas Willard's Divine Conspiracy.
Both would see these passages as a call to a different sort of being. Stassen's book, in particular, is excellent as showing a pattern throughout the sermon of Jesus identifying a "traditional righteousness" (a way of looking at morality, often introduced with "you have heard it said...") which leads to a self-defeating vicious cycle of some sort. Then Jesus offers a "transforming initiative"-- a "way out" that we are offered, a way to avoid that vicious cycle by becoming a new sort of person-- a person from whom the life-affirming patterns are a natural outgrowth.
As has noted, he follows this pattern with anger, acts of righteousness, etc. Here the pericope fits Stassen's pattern perfectly: the self-defeating vicious cycle is "don't commit adultery" which means you walk all day thinking about not banging this one or that one (in the same way that resolving "not to think about pink elephants" insures you will think of nothing else). Which means your heart and mind are consumed with lust, which only increases the temptation-- ultimately leading to that very sin you're trying to avoid.
Jesus' transforming initiative is responsibility and respect. If instead of looking at a member of the opposite (or desired) sex as a potential or not-potential sexual partner (insuring that's all you think of when you see them), you learn to look at them with respect. If you look on a woman as "sister" then looking at her as "sexual partner" is automatically excluded (unless you're really twisted, but that's another story). Respect excludes lust-- and thus delivers you from the vicious cycle, the burden of trying to "be good" and always falling short.
In practical realities, of course, this is not always easy to accomplish. But it's not meant to be. And there is grace for the journey.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Naif that I am, I would have thought that it makes some difference whether either you or the woman you're lusting about are already married.
If not, where's the adultery?
[Pedant ON/]
In Jesus' day, basically every woman past puberty would have been somebody's fiancee or wife (or, I suppose, widow, a state that often transmogrified rapidly into a second marriage for economic and other reasons). So much so that one could assume the object of one's lust was married--unless one was a pedophile.
For women it would be different, as men tended to marry later, and some not at all.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
