A debate over “lust” in Matthew 5:27-30
This occurred between May 5, 2009 and May 12, 2009 between me and “Carolyn”: someone I don’t know who emailed me from my website. I made some good points so I thought it should be shared.
(I’ve colored my words in blue and her’s in black, etc., and I’ve rearranged it top to bottom)
Carolyn:
Subject: A question for you. …
Hey, just
wanted to say i love your TRUE interpretations of what scripture REALLY says..The
original meaning.
Nice to know lust isn't a sin..fornication isn't what most Christians think it is..etc..
Now i want to know, how do you interpret this verse in Job?
I made a covenant with thine eyes; how then should
I look upon a maid?
That almost sounds like lust right there? I am confused..
Me:
Great issue!
I assume you’ve read http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Lust.htm, and the fornication links.
It’s the “original” New Testament (the Greek): Jesus overrules any contradiction in the Old Testament. “Lust” is still a sin, but since it is caused by women’s reservations supported by the church, women’s reservations is the root if the problem / evil. In an open / free sex society, no man would become that depraved to desire that strongly / problematically. (And, I don’t recommend a change in today’s Church-condemning and STD world.) It’s an “overall” sin that isn’t the fault of an individual (man or woman), it’s the sin of the corrupt church that causes the problem.
Lots of the Old Testament and even Paul’s letters can be in misinterpretation, even corruption (the last few versus of the entire Bible states this can be the case). Jesus is the one to follow when there’s a discrepancy. And, if Jesus appears to contradict Himself, then the Goldenrule is to prevail, as it exists in both overwhelming instruction and in rational logic. Job 31:1 sounds like the thing to do to avoid the same kind of problem in that era. Most people can only think in extremes; and, sexual desire in moderation in not an easy thing to accomplish in the depraved human male mind; therefore, if one is trying to fight it, then complete apathy is the only stability. Again, making oneself desire “ugly” people equally is the only way to maintain an acceptable medium. But, in a world where even sex with an “ugly” person is denounced, the problem is escalated. Again, my explanation tells the sin to be the unfair desire for the more attractive woman: an actual natural occurrence that both I and Jesus say needs to be drastically changed for it to be a better world; therefore, requires His “pluck your eyes out” kind of stress.
That fornication word is the main word that changes the entire scene. That alone “breaks” the church’s Biblical support against single people for sex only in marriage, and shows that the entire issue is in corruption. You should spread that information.
I’m confused, are you suggesting that Jesus is saying that no man should ever sexually desire a woman, which would end mankind? Therefore, there has to be another explanation, and mine is the only one I’ve ever heard that makes any sense, and which “fits” with the reality of the issue. The “fact” that people don’t sexually desire “ugly” people supports my claim. Jesus said it right. It just has to be thought out. (Jesus said it in a way to circumvent medieval corruption.)
Carolyn:
Hi and
thank you for your reply.
Hmm...i dont really agre with your theory. I don't think it is natural, nor do i
think God expects us to be attracted to EVERYBODY. Not only that, beauty is in
the eyes of the beholder. What's not attractive to one person, will be
attractive to another and so on. Therefore, it all balances out. And whats
ugly? Is anone really truly ugly? If we all looked like the way we're supposed
to look like..slim trim..young and what not..like the way God intended for us
to be in the garden of Eden before the fall...then surely there would be far
more attractive people to chose from. Its not normal to desire ANYTHING ugly
for that matter. God did not create ugly. He is the author of beauty.
Lust is really just coveting something or someone who doesnt belong to you.
Me:
Maybe I didn't say it clearly: What's natural is desiring the "attractive." It's something that causes "unfair" desire. It's a "bug" in our software. God would rather our sexual desires be "fair." "Fairness" to/for others (the Goldenrule) is the entire law according to the Bible. Creating a fad for diversity in looks is the key to more equaled-out sexual desire. Humans are very fad prone: If your friends are doing it, then that will make you want to do it (basically).
Deviating from the natural is even mowing our lawns. It is natural to have sex and get pregnant, but we control it via, e.g., abstinence, the rhythm method, etc. Being prejudice is natural, but experts today say we shouldn’t do it. Heck, building a fire is not natural, but we do it. Wearing clothes is not natural, but we do it. Doing the Goldenrule is not natural, but God demands we do it. I am very well prepared for these subjects.
Today, attractive is just the average size features: Nose not too big, not too small; etc. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder is only slight variations to this for the most part. People are still "overwhelmingly" naturally unattracted to "ugly" people.
Regarding your: "Lust is really just coveting something or someone who doesnt belong to you." "People" aren't supposed to "belong" to anyone else. That's synonymous with slavery, prostitution (the real definition of "fornication"), which, in marriage, causes all the domestic violence, hardships, controllings, codependences, jealousy (against others who deserve the same kind of God's love), etc., and the non-spreading / limitations of true / tangible "love": sexual love (between non-related adults). Your point comes from the 10 Commandments, which again, is Old Testament, therefore subject to change/modification, like Jesus affirmed in Matthew 5:38-48, for example.
Great questions!
Carolyn:
Hi there..
I understood what you said, i just do not agree. Why would God care who we
desire in a romantic/sexual way? We are not suppose to, nor is it required to
love everyone in that way. As long as we love them spiritually (agape), that's
all that matters. Eros love is not required. The fruits of the spirits is what
is required. And what are the fruits of the spirit? Galatians
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith.
It says nothing about romantic/eros love. Having different "tastes"
in what a person finds attractive, is NOT a fad..aka sin. It what makes us
unique and special. We are all like snowflakes. lol...And whats beauiful to one
person, may be average to another. And it is OKAY. It is NOT a sin. No one will
be left out because there will always be someone to like any given person. And in
an ideal world...no one will be "ugly". No one will be old, fat,
deformed, bald, what have you. We will all look good. Therefore, your theory
will come more into play.
And i agree with you there, about people shouldn't belong to anyone. Youre
right. No one should OWN anyone. That is part of the curse. I believe
marriage is part of the curse. Men owning women is not God's original plan.
I do love your greek to english translations tho. Its amazing how words got
twisted and meanings got changed.
God bless
Me:
"Favoritism" is the problem. "Favoritism" is the result of today's monogamy or even preferences in open / free sex. "Favoritism" causes more real care, real concern and real things for the "one" you favor. God wants this bias treatment to be more balanced out to take what has caused too much unfairness (marriage, etc.), and redirect it's Eros power to a more "fair" treatment of others. "Favoritism" is the cause of all wars, etc. "Spiritual" love is "phony": it's not real / advantageous love. It's another church cop-out. I've talked a lot about this at my website. I know I have so many good points that my website is huge, so I don't mind answering your questions. Paul's Greek word for love (agap..., or phil...) were both used as sexual love when it referred to love between adults. It's the same as today. That's why one trucker doesn't tell the other trucker that he loves him unless they've got a thing going on, or are blood related. See my Septuagint page. Problems between non-related adults is where the need for improvement is: wars, unfair business practices, etc. A husband and wife can have problems because of too much love forced upon them, based on each other's "ownership" of the other. A happy medium (and "happy" has a double meaning there) is what's best and most healthy in the way people should view others: A husband will normally side with his wife when she is having a dispute with an outside party, right or wrong. It can never be perfect, but open / free sex with a desire for someone who looks different everytime (basically) will lessen this problem quite a lot. I predict enough to end all wars, and definitely all prejudices -- which still exists today big time. Again, open sexual love will simply cause the treating of disputes with more fairness for two reasons: lessening the favoritism for current loved ones, even family (according to Jesus), thereby increasing the "value" for other: Sexual love is tangible love and tangible love causes each and every physical body to have more tangible (real) appeal, even if you've never met the person. Just the thought that's it's someone of the slightest physical "value" would greatly pressure negotiations rather than war, e.g. If everyone could "love one another" (John 13:34) as much as men love women, then it'd be a much, much better world. Early Christian documentation tells that sexual love is spiritual love. Eros is a synonym of agap... and phil.... All the documentation that says they differ is a huge lie, because the church knows they have a big problem if they are the same. Especially with Eros being left out of the NT, just so to not become corrupted. God's pretty smart. Corrupt commentary is mainly trying to get the sex out of agap.... Ancient sources (including the Greek Old Testament: Septuagint) tell it different.
"Having different tastes" is entirely what I saying each person should sexually desire. This has to (basically) be done at different times. Not that John likes blondes and Bob likes red heads. That's a permanent or era type of desire that causes others to be "left out." People are "left out" of many things when they are "unattractive." An attractive doctor's wife has a lot more things and is included in a lot more clubs, activities, vacations, etc. than an "ugly" women married to a guy making basic needs with two jobs.
It's even easier to get a (good) job if you are attractive. I don't know how else to explain the fact that the vast majority of people are more attracted to "better" looking people, which pretty much matches the same faces, with minor variations. Walk around a grocery store in a low income community versus a high income community, and you'll see the difference. And that's just proving my point on the employment reason. Men appear to be more open about desiring attractive women, than women to men, therefore why Jesus targets men's eyes in Matt. 5:28. At times I've been in overwhelming female company where they can get talking about how attractive certain movie stars are, etc., so the desire is also there in women as well. Again, men's "fad" is to seek the attractive women; where unless the environment ("fad") allows, women feel less "ladylike" expressing preference. Again, all because of environmental acceptances ("fads"). Changing that "fad" is not "normal," but would be a kind of permanent fetish that can change the entire world for the better. Sex is an extremely powerful tool.
And, I could even be wrong about desiring diversity as not "normal." 97% of all mammals are non-monogamous, and Native Americans thought that sex with foreigners was spiritually advantageous. Yeah, once there's no more STDs. Today, the church admitting the true sexual instruction of Jesus, would streamline STD cures.
If you're talking about the Afterlife, that's getting into another entire matter: mainly my endeavor has to do with making this fallible world better.
Again, dissolving marriage where it's open / free sex, is one thing; but, it's not going to work until there's a "fad" for someone who looks different every time (basically).
Also, with society moving away from the marriage standard, and the church holding on to the marriage standard, that's just going to move more and more people away from Christ.
Carolyn:
I don't
know, i just can't agree. Maybe you were left out...or never felt "good
looking" enough or something..i don't know.
And no, .it is not our faulty way of thinking. Its not a fad...and i don't
believe in evolution.
What you are saying isn't even scriptural. Its radical and way out in left
field. Almost as far out as those "Children Of God" folks who believe
we will all have sex with Jesus in Heaven. How nutty is that?
I don't want to knock you or make you feel bad..but i totally do NOT agree. I
don't feel it in my spirit that you are correct. Generally if something is
"right on" i will feel a warm feeling from the Holy Spirit..
I have been a Christan for 30 years, and i just can't swallow this.
I know you mean well..and i honor that..i just don't agree.
God bless.
Me (with Carolyn’s inserted later comments (in black):
Oddly, I've been both "ugly" and "good looking" at times in my dating life; so yes, I'm probably a good person for God to use to comment on the subject. I'm one of those people who drastically change depending solely on how my hair looks. And when all the freckles dropped off the face, that helped too.
Evolution is getting into another phase: It's really irrelevant to what we should all be looking at for the future, but I believe in evolution, but that changes aren't totally by accident / mistakes: there is an underlying and unexplainable drive (God) that is causing the slight improvements over time. And, four seasons had to pass before God could call it good, indicating someone later added the "day" parts. Again, the last few versus of Revelations say this is possible, therefore likely has happened. God can't "just" correct it when a human goofs. Revelation 22:18,19 tells that God can't "just" do anything/everything. In reading Genesis 1, it's a process that He doesn't know if He's going to like it until He does it. Surely there were and still are many things / details He would like changed. Sin (today) is one of them. (Sex out of marriage is not a sin. "Marriage" is a sin; but again, like lust, a couple does not sin by getting married, the sin is of those high in the church for making and still supporting the lie.)
"Radical" yes. It's so radical that it's the Apocalypse: the second coming of Christ's true teachings with all things revealed and elaborated. I know how far out that sounds, but I didn't pursue this endeavor, it's just something that just fell into place. My stuff just "fits" with said scenario. It's scriptural. Otherwise explain, e.g., how could Jesus be telling everyone in the world to not desire sex anymore in Matt. 5:28, as is the traditional explanation.
Jesus was
not telling everyone to not desire sex. LOL He was just telling men not to
covet after other mens wives. Meaning..dont plan on stealing them and taking
them away from other men! Like stealing their property!
It was a matter of respct. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus wasnt telling them not to desire women sexually. LOL it wasnt a
sexual thing.
Again, Jesus says "whoever" meaning
"everyone." The Shakers of Kentucky used to read both that
Jesus and Paul were against marriage, and that "fornication" and
"lust" meant no sex outside of marriage. The Shakers didn't
last very long as they didn't produce offspring. What if the world did
what everyone thinks
"scripture" orders, which is the Christian goal? The NT was
written to allow the Middle Age corruptors satisfaction enough to not
completely disavow Christianity, allowing me the support I need, in both the
original Greek language and better thought-out explanations.
I don't want to knock you either, but what you feel is not from God, it is what pleases your personal satisfaction and/or what you've been taught.
Nobody
taught me that. LOL And its funny, because i feel what YOU think is not from
God. LOL
If anyone thinks outside the box...its me.
God is not more powerful than our self-centered
desires, or Hitler would not have been able to roll his tanks across Poland. And a little bit
of "natural" can play a part also. All Mormons for
example easily recruit by asking people to see if they get a "warm
felling" when they ask God if Mormonism is true. It's a
phenomenon that also makes each side in a war "feel" down deep that
they are on the right side. You are normal feeling the way you feel about
my "radical" explanations. It's probably better for you as
a individual to believe the way you wish... as long as you practice a
strong Golden Rule.
I appreciate your thoughts. It helps me prepare for what I'm up against when my stuff becomes popular.
LOL you
sound a bit narcissistic.
Oh well....i still love you anyway..thru Christ.
Me:
I like your explanation of and agree with your moral point to Matt. 5:28's lust, but "stealing" was not the main point. It has to do specifically with the "eye." A man could still steal a man's ugly wife, especially if looks didn't make any difference. Or, a blind man could steal the wife, and still feel some great sex regardless of what she looks like. The inspiring point has to do with, or backs up to, the overall initial desire; which can certainly lead to stealing, among many other things / problems. A man will normally think a strong sexual desire for an attractive woman walking down the sidewalk, and apathy or actually be a bit appalled by the appearance of an ugly woman walking down the sidewalk. Again, this results in unfairness in areas of companionship, wealth, employment, even racial discrimination, etc. There's three entire allegoric chapters in the Book of Revelation talking about it's pitfalls. Not desiring sex at all is the standard (technical) traditional church explanation, as "strong" desire (lust) can also be in marriage (in fact, that's where they say it's supposed to be). (They're having trouble logically spinning it to say it's only sex out of marriage, yet they will "just" say that.) Your explanation fits probably better in that Old Testament covet teaching. Sexual desire's a big deal, and it shouldn't be limited to just certain types of people. "Covet" is intended to get people to quit the "keeping up with the Joneses" kind of competition, that's still popular in wealthy societies today; and to tell people to be more content with what they have, and not play the game. Surely a neighbor's attractive wife is someone the other neighbor would love to take away from him. Games are a major human "fad" today. So, covet is the same premise, but Jesus expands on the subject in specificity. But, I can own hundreds of IPods, and that's not going to cause anyone any problems, but most everyone lusting with the eye can, as it involves human beings. Jesus even mentions "adultery" to refer this to the Old Testament citing, but again expands it, with a very strong or pluck out your eye support for my strong need of His support in this very important matter. Again, there's two different kinds of woman walking down the sidewalk. One causes it "strong" and one doesn't. What does the church call the sexual desire for an ugly woman? (Probably "warped.") They can't really call it "lust," by definition. I mean some guys settle with ugly just to avoid all the problems attractive women will give them. Believe me, they still don't "strongly" desire them with their "eye": even if they're an ugly guy, they're just taking what they can get. Love that grows with time (like with a lot of experiences together) is another kind of love. That kind of love you can't feel when you just met a person. That kind of love is probably what keeps a lot of couples together. I'm sure it's the same the other way around between an attractive woman and an ugly man. Does today's church say we should only desire ugly spouses? With today's status quo, such would be more what Jesus would want one to do, as it is giving love to someone who needs it much more, and I know by experience that an "ugly" woman will care a lot more for me than an attractive woman will. Well great, I'm following what Jesus wants, so the rest of the world needs to get on board too; and, that's what I'm talking about regarding my overall thesis. Again, Jesus took the point more away from the stealing of adultery and repositioned it to where the real problem lies. I just appear to be the only one smart enough to have ever figured it all out. That's the only reason I started all my writing years ago: because I seemed to know lots of things that I was never hearing anywhere else.
"Thinking outside the box" is exactly that: "thinking," not "feeling." My explanations are all based on logic. This is probably the first time secular logic has met with metaphoric and symbolic religion. The two should be combined (once it's perfect). Miracles should not be taught anymore as a way to make people believe: Jesus told they will not believe unless there are miracles / signs. That's just a fact that God had to deal with at the time.
"Narcissistic": It does me no personal good by doing all this writing and research. It's costing me loads of money that I could be spending on beautiful women if that's all I cared about. Plus, for a better example, concern for the well being of animals is a "logical" choice as well, that does me no personal good. My objective is just to please God for an assured Afterlife. The atheists would call me a BIG fool, as I don't make any money doing this. I am sorry, but I can't help but think I'm smarter than everyone else, since no one has ever refuted any of my main points, except for "just" saying it, or that I'm wrong because they've been taught otherwise, by people who "should" know more than me about it; and, because my points "fit" much better with otherwise vague passages.
Carolyn:
Its not the
"eye" that Jesus was referring to. Its the HEART. Its not whats ugly
or pretty to a mans eye..its where his heart his at.
And yes, my reasoning is not only based on logic..but also on scripture.
And sexual desire is not ALWAYS based on physical appearance. A lot of times
one can feel sexual desire towards someone who is NOT physically attractive,
but has inner qualities that can make one SEXY.
LOL you're cute...but you are not smarter then everyone else..
Anyhoo..we're just going back and forth here. I will not surrender to your way
of thinking, nor can i change YOUR mind. We can agree to disagree tho. 
Like i said..i still love you thru Christ.
Me:
It's the "eye" because of the added emphasis in verse 29. The eye is what causes the "heart" to be bias (or, to want to steal another man's wife). Verse 30 adds the similar wrong of direct stealing with the "hand."
Mine started with scripture, then logic; since, I've found much scriptural support for my logic in both the original Greek and Hebrew, and many reinterpretations that better "fit" with many vague passages. I have "proved" that Jesus is the one to follow. I don't "just" believe It because someone told me to (I did at one time though).
Hear, hear: I like sex much better with someone with a good personality than great looks. Others? No so much: How the person looks appears to have predominance. It's so powerful that a guy looking for sex in a bar, won't even try to pick up an available "ugly" women there. (Or, if he does by default, he won't call her the next day.) Therefore, "looks discrimination" is even overruling the power of sex itself. I mean, with an open mind, the sex would be essentially the same (or even better), yet the real overwhelming problem that I'm talking about (looks) has definite priority. And, that needs to be changed. The prostitution/marriage standard is a culprit in the looks problem. Guys become pretty choosy with who they want to spend their hard earned money with. Get rid of the prostitution/marriage (by looser women -- don't try it today), then maybe there won't be so much discrimination. I still think there will have to be a "fad" for diversity in looks, where there'll be some kind of spiritual gain by touching as many different people as you can. Medically, it would be a natural vaccine against growing viruses (again, don't try it today).
You asked why my stuff was so "radical." Me being smarter than everyone else is simply the more correct answer. My answer could not be as complete or as accurate if I didn't reply it that way. It "fits." I am dumb when it comes to lots of other subjects, but apparently I'm gifted with this one. Again, I didn't pursue it, it more or less pursued me. If the money-based Bible interpreters that you think you're supposed to trust, tell you that mine is correct, then you would quickly change too. The power if influential people (those who have the money) has the kind of power that would make you run at a machine gun (if you were a guy). I understand why you can't accept my more "fitting" thesis as an individual. Atheists use Matt. 5:28's appearance that Jesus said all sex is evil, for just another justification to be an atheist. My interpretation is the best and only "rational" way to argue the point. All religion eventually has to come down to meet "rational" or it will eventually fail.
Carolyn:
LMAO [“laughing my ass off ”] you
have problems.
God bless.
Me:
Again, where or how am I wrong? Specifically, let me know where the definite "eye" has nothing to do with what we define as attractive?
End: No later replies.
-- Well, I know I’ve won a debate when they continually go on to another point, then end with a firm insult --