[quote]dmaddox wrote:
You can look at a woman and admire how beautiful she is, but undressing her with your eyes, and wanting to ravish her goes beyond admiring her.[/quote]
I’m of the opinion that when a straight man with intact testes admires the beauty of a beautiful woman, he is lusting after her by definition. Maybe not “coveting,” but certainly looking with “lustful intent.” And we all know how Jesus felt about that.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
You can look at a woman and admire how beautiful she is, but undressing her with your eyes, and wanting to ravish her goes beyond admiring her.[/quote]
I’m of the opinion that when a straight man with intact testes admires the beauty of a beautiful woman, he is lusting after her by definition. Maybe not “coveting,” but certainly looking with “lustful intent.” And we all know how Jesus felt about that.[/quote]
There is an extremely fine line, and yes it is difficult. The obvious necessity for what Jesus did.
I am Human and I am not going to say I am perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I actually struggle with this.
[quote]espenl wrote:
The norwegian translation of the ten commandments says you can’t desire anothers wife. I hope the english are getting a better deal.
G-d should have made a norwegian version of the bible from the get go, so it wouldn’t be misunderstood.[/quote]
The word is “chamad.”
“Desire” is not exactly correct; nor is “lust after;” nor even “covet,” although “covet” is the closest.
And it’s not just someone else’s wife – it’s their stuff – car, house, etc. Or even their accomplishments.
It’s basically an admonition against setting your heart to things that are forbidden because it such desire makes you spiritually sick and envious.
Such unhealthy desire leads to envy, unhappiness, unfulfulment with life, and even theft and murder.
+++++
It’s not, “hey my wife’s neighbor is hot.”
It’s obssessing over her beauty in an unhealthy way, such that you neglect your wife (or wish your wife was her) or resent your neighbor.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
The norwegian translation of the ten commandments says you can’t desire anothers wife. I hope the english are getting a better deal.
G-d should have made a norwegian version of the bible from the get go, so it wouldn’t be misunderstood.[/quote]
The word is “chamad.”
“Desire” is not exactly correct; nor is “lust after;” nor even “covet,” although “covet” is the closest.
And it’s not just someone else’s wife – it’s their stuff – car, house, etc. Or even their accomplishments.
It’s basically an admonition against setting your heart to things that are forbidden because it such desire makes you spiritually sick and envious.
Such unhealthy desire leads to envy, unhappiness, unfulfulment with life, and even theft and murder.
+++++
It’s not, “hey my wife’s neighbor is hot.”
It’s obssessing over her beauty in an unhealthy way, such that you neglect your wife (or wish your wife was her) or resent your neighbor.[/quote]
Jewbacca for US Representative or Senate. Winner
Don’t be an envious bastard is a lot better than “you shall not desire your neighbours wife”. With your translation it went from a silly rule to something people should do regardless of religion. Thanks Jewbacca. I think the norwegian bible need a new translation (again) the last time they tried to change all references from a male god to some that could be either or no sex.
I agree!
[quote]espenl wrote:
Don’t be an envious bastard is a lot better than “you shall not desire your neighbours wife”. With your translation it went from a silly rule to something people should do regardless of religion. Thanks Jewbacca. I think the norwegian bible need a new translation (again) the last time they tried to change all references from a male god to some that could be either or no sex.[/quote]
You are very welcome. Any translation is imperfect, either by accident, nature of language, or even intentional editorial changes. Always best to go back to the source.
Also, the “10 Commandments” are just headings, the equivalent of chapter titles.
To rely on them alone would be like reading the chapter titles of “Gone with the Wind” and thinking you understand the novel. A lot of the concerns and criticisms (and misunderstandings) people have with the Bible can be fixed simply by reading the thing – the whole thing.
Right, and I would change that analogy to Blood Banks if I was relating to a Vampire,
or a Men’s Gym locker room if he was gay.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For all practical purposes they are synonymous. [/quote]
Is this not, like, your opinion, man?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
You can look at a woman and admire how beautiful she is, but undressing her with your eyes, and wanting to ravish her goes beyond admiring her.[/quote]
I’m of the opinion that when a straight man with intact testes admires the beauty of a beautiful woman, he is lusting after her by definition. Maybe not “coveting,” but certainly looking with “lustful intent.” And we all know how Jesus felt about that.[/quote]
You are wrong.
“Lust” and “covet” go hand in hand. That goes beyond admiration. For all practical purposes they are synonymous. Coveting and lust are sins where a man says to himself “I want her/it and would/will take her/it if I get the chance.” It’s the planning of a theft.
Another way of putting it is planning a bank robbery is akin to lust and covetousness. Executing the robbery is analogous with the act of adultery. Driving by the bank and being impressed with the amount of money in it is mere “admiration.”[/quote]
I agree with you that “lust” for something is bad; that’s not exactly this commandment. This is about lusting after something that is forbidden.
Lust, such that you want it, but it’s not necessarily forbidden, would fall under “thou shall have no other (lower case) gods before Me.”
In this case, the “gods” can be a fake diety, but can also be anything you really, really, want to an unhealthy degree – money, power, success – which become like a “god” to that person.
For example you can really, really desire money and go out and work for it, and that’s OK.
But you can also really, really desire money and work for such that you cast aside important things in life (like G-d, your family), which is most things.
+++++++
Indeed, pretty much all sins start off as normal, healthy, wants and needs, but that get exagerated or twisted in some way.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For all practical purposes they are synonymous. [/quote]
Is this not, like, your opinion, man?[/quote]
It’s, like, an educated opinion, man.
[/quote]
What passage in the New Testament yields the interpretation that Jesus means anything other than plain old lust with that line in Matthew?
The lust thing…well, more importantly the sex thing is confounding sometimes.
Granted one should not look at another Man’s wife in lust…but I’ve read many studies that say ABSTAINING from Sex is bad for the
Prostate…but WAIT, Masturbation’s a SIN (I think) so you can’t even ‘clean out the pipes’ and be sexually HEALTHY,
Biologically men can have erections and orgasms every day…every friggin’ day…many times twice a day!
I mean, we’re DESIGNED to have sex often, VERY often…otherwise we’d be designed to just have erections
and ejaculations once in a blue moon, or only when we’re in our 20’s and 30’s to have babies…Then theoretically just go LIMP
and be completely dried up and sexually finished in our late-thirties because our ‘job’ of procreating is essentially done.
But that’s not the case…Men are CREATED and biologically and capably designed for lots Sex, pretty much up until old age.
Everything in moderation of course, but something is ‘off’ and skewed with the sexual “rules” of the Ancient texts,
especially when it comes to prostate health and the sex needed to maintain it.
[quote]espenl wrote:
This one shows some of the problems of religion in 2013.[/quote]
Good post
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For all practical purposes they are synonymous. [/quote]
Is this not, like, your opinion, man?[/quote]
It’s, like, an educated opinion, man.
[/quote]
What passage in the New Testament yields the interpretation that Jesus means anything other than plain old lust with that line in Matthew?[/quote]
Define “plain old lust.”
But since I think you mean sexual attraction you will need to study the subject in its entirety (in context) in Scripture. I’ve been over this many times here on PWI in the past so it makes no sense for me to type and type and type it out all over again.
Plain old lust REALLY is what I described above. Plain new lust is this idea that merely finding a woman attractive is out of bounds.[/quote]
Plain old lust–want to have sex with. You find me the original Aramaic word that Jesus used and prove to me that it excludes the possibility that he meant to condemn people who allow themselves to fantasize about or want sex outside of marriage and I’ll gladly give in. Until then, we’ve got a Greek word that suggests otherwise.
What’s interesting is that Jesus didn’t specifically address Homosexuality while on Earth…There MUST have been
a number of them who were living in the area, and likely even in the attendance at the great Sermon on the Mount,
the perfect opportunity to address a subject he must have known about because it was quite commonly practiced
and allegedly not a big deal to practice homosexuality during the Roman Empire, yet ‘goose egg’…nothing on that…very interesting.