Math 5: 27-29. It is understood, that Math 5,5,7 are part of the famous "sermon on the mountain"
The free pass I mentioned is: that HE mentioned adultery, which implies that the looker or the looked upon must be married. Bridal inspections are fine!
Sin
- Thread starter Wizard of Whatever
- Start date
The free pass I mentioned is: that HE mentioned adultery, which implies that the looker or the looked upon must be married. Bridal inspections are fine!
Matthew 5:
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
---
It is not clear to me whether, in 5:27, Jesus is referring to women in general or only to married women. A straightforward reading would suggest that Jesus is saying that it is a sin to look at any woman lustfully.
Against this view would be that this would redefine what the word "adultery" usually means. But, on the other hand, that might be exactly what Jesus was trying to do, there.
To be safe, beil, I'd suggest that you avoid looking at any woman with lust. After all, you don't want to end up in hell for committing adultery in your heart, do you? The risk is too great.
If you're a heterosexual man, it might be difficult to avoid having the odd lustful thought about women who are passing by. So to be extra safe, you probably shouldn't ever go out of the house, and if you do be sure to wear a blindfold if there's any chance you might see a woman.
The onus is on the male. If he is married, looking at any woman would be a betrayal. For a single man to look at a married woman that lecherous way would be a despicable attack on civil order. ( I had a "friend" in my youth, who specialized exclusively, (successfully) in 'pick ups' of married ladies. -- resulting pregnancies (hate those condoms) were always the responsibility of the jilted husbands. ( no maintenance payments for him)
Single men on single ladies, fine. Of course there is nothing wrong with appreciating a sculpture as a work of art. It is that second, or persistent look that the carpenter from Galilee condemned . Viewing pornography would be covered here too, as too graphic.
As for me, at 95, with a beautiful wife half my age, Job 31:1 does the trick. thank you!!
Single men on single ladies, fine. Of course there is nothing wrong with appreciating a sculpture as a work of art. It is that second, or persistent look that the carpenter from Galilee condemned . Viewing pornography would be covered here too, as too graphic.
As for me, at 95, with a beautiful wife half my age, Job 31:1 does the trick. thank you!!
Biblically, yes. Women in the bible are essentially considered to be property.
Matthew 5 doesn't distinguish between the looker being married or unmarried. Matthew 5:27 says "anyone". Actually, only any male looker is implied by the latter use of the pronoun "his", although I can't say whether that pronoun is there in the original Greek.
Ooh yes! We can't have men just looking at women, willy nilly. One must always check whether a woman is married before looking at her. Society would break down, otherwise.
Too much looking is surely the problem.
Like I noted previously, the bible verse doesn't actually say that.
Just not a living woman.
One would need to check whether the female models/actors in the pornography were married, I assume.
I don't care. If a guy rapes someone, whether their lust is false or not matters not at all. What DOES matter is that he raped someone.
It cuts both ways, Think of Joseph, who was ooglet by Potyphar's wife, and, as a slave ordered to sleep with her.
Mathew, by mentioning adultery, limits the condemned action to at least one married participant
Like the song said "just one look that is all it took" think of all thr mayhem tragedies because of destroyed or never existing marriages.
sexual phantasies are not recommended fodder for the morally inclined.
Live by the spirit of the law. check whether you the reader, or viewer are married.
enjoy a healthy life.
In nature, deviating from the law, but keeping only within what you think is the "spirit" has devastating consequences. So, I like the laws having allowed me to have great experiences, loops, spins, rolls, rises, still keeps me on track on the skateboard. Fear of the "Lord's law" have kept my family intact.
I like the spirit, in essence energy.
My past post should reflect that, -- I hope.
I like the spirit, in essence energy.
My past post should reflect that, -- I hope.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
All I am saying is that true desire does not lead to rape,
Of course it does. It is the driving force between many (not all) rapes.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
No, that's false desire.
True desire contains caring and appreciation as well as wanting.
No, that's caring and appreciation, which is not an integral part of desire. Desire is lust, which is a basic instinct that keeps our species going.
Wait - are you defining "true desire" as "any desire that does not lead to sexual assault?" If so then no worries; I'll let you define your own words and we can move on.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
No, I see true desire as the will to consensual interaction on a level deeper than just physical, but with a sexual component contained with in it.
Like I said, you can have any definitions for any words you want. You can define "evil" as "good things that people do for each other" if you want. Totally up to you if you enjoy that sort of thing.
Just don't expect anyone to have any clue what you are talking about. For other people, words mean things.
In all sins, think of the victim. a raped woman, if impregnated, she and her family are facing hundred of thousands of dollars of expenses to raise that Bt-Fatherless child. . Sorry for the title, no reflection on the new born, that might be hopefully dearly loved.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
I guess you can't because of your not having experienced it.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
It is an argument for abortion on one hand, and adoption on another.
You are correct; I have not experienced evil as good. But then again I use the more boring textbook definition of words.
I was thinking more in terms of restitution, a six figure settlement imposed