lure of the forbidden
Sin seems to go to the heart of the attraction of Christianity for many people. Well, at least the cathartic blogger types, I can’t really speak for the rest of them. To help these people get a handle on what ‘sin’ is (because my previous posts don’t appear to have done the trick) I thought it would be useful to look an example case: ADULTERY.
This is clearly a sin in the Bible. Not like contraception, gay marriage or genetically modified crops, where the Christians have to look for the passages they think best back up their point of view, and then quote them till they’re convinced it’s the will of their deity. Adultery is clearly and unequivocally stated as sinful on lots of occasions, and even by the persuasive character of Jesus himself. So, let’s be clear about our definition: ADULTERY is sex between a married person and somebody who is not their husband or wife.
Reasons NOT to commit adultery: it’s possible you may hurt your spouse’s feelings and damage or destroy your marriage; it’s possible that any urges you have are passing and superficial, and not worth any long-term negative complications they might cause; if you have children, they are likely to be negatively affected if they find out, or if the marriage breaks down as a result of your actions.
** Additional reason for Christians: it’s a sin in the Bible.
Reasons to commit adultery: you choose physical pleasure over other considerations; your marriage isn’t working out and you and your spouse have agreed to separate; you and your spouse are happy having more than one sexual partner.
** Additional reason for Christians: it’s a sin in the Bible! (It’s a forbidden and tempting, lusty sin of the flesh; and if you’ve already thought about it, you’ve done it, so why not? And if you did fleetingly think about it and are trying not to, chances are your thought suppression tactics will backfire on you and you’ll be thinking about it more than you would have done if you’d just allowed yourself to think about SINNING. God knows what you’re thinking!)
Now, I wouldn’t like to suggest that Christians don’t dabble in the occasional common sense analysis of their actions, but I think it’s safe to say that when it comes to issues like ADULTERY, the additional weight of SIN can make it all feel rather more alluring than it is really is. Beware! There are harlots, evil women and smooth tongued adultresses just waiting to temp you round every corner. (As far as I’m aware, no mention of sleazy married men with bad chat-up lines – a warning that would have been more practical.)
Interesting! So, according to this, Christians would be more prone to adultery? I woder if this could actually be tested… it would be very interesting to see the results!
LikeLike
That would certainly be an interesting experiment! However, it’s difficult to know how much weight the Christian ‘sin’ in the ‘reasons not to do it’ may provide as a counter balance. I certainly think they suffer a lot of unnecessary psychological torment by attempting not to ‘sin’ in thought, and that this is indeed likely to make them more liable ‘sin’ in action. I suspect the most revealing experiment would be with two sets of Christians – one set that’s not bothered about ‘thought sin/temptation’, and dismisses any random thoughts as of no importance, and one set that attempts to suppress or control any thoughts they regard as sinful. Maybe we can get some volunteers from this post! 🙂
LikeLike
Hmm … so, what came first, the priest or the pervert?
LikeLike
Celibacy. Undoubtedly.
LikeLike
With the case of adultery, I don’t think there’d be as much of an effect; social mores provide enough discouragement of adultery to produce the same “forbidden fruit” mentality for Christians and non-Christians alike. But for sex in general, I think this is definitely a factor. The church’s prurience toward all things sexual can only encourage obsessiveness about sex.
LikeLike
I would have to disagree. Certainly the ‘forbidden fruit’ angle exists for all but for Christians they’re not even supposed to think about it – they’ve already sinned if they do. This leads to thought repression, which leads to thinking about it more, which leads to guilt, anxiety, confusion … and ADULTERY. 🙂
LikeLike
The question comes down to whether the entertainment of fantasies increases or decreases the likelihood of acting out those fantasies.
LikeLike
Nothing to do with ‘entertainment’. It’s to do with suppression. If you allow fleeting thoughts to enter and leave your mind with no concern, and no undue bad associations, you are less likely to revisit them.
LikeLike
It should probably be pointed that, contrary to fundamentalist evangelicalism’s insistence, it was the entertainment of lust—actively looking and seeking it out—that Jesus was condemning. Not the existence of thoughts.
LikeLike
*Your* interpretation. I think Jesus was more than clear about thought crimes when he said this: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
LikeLike
Where does he mention thought in this passage? Looking lustfully is an action, not a thought.
While we’re on the topic….about this whole “interpretation” thing. I understand some Bible passages are cryptic or mysterious or altogether Nostradamus-y. But when it’s plain conversational language like this, shouldn’t “interpretation” be as simple as scholarly textual criticism?
LikeLike
You’re being ridiculous now. You can’t ‘look lustfully’ without accompanying thoughts.
It’s not science, it’s language, and the each passage is open to linguistic, cultural and contextual interpretation. Most people read the Bible knowing what they believe, and either selecting passages that confirm their beliefs, or attempting to extract different interpretations of ones which suggest otherwise. Scholarly textual criticism abounds with different opinions, or *interpretations*.
If you prefer, that’s *your* scholarly textual criticism. 🙂
LikeLike
Right, but you can have thoughts without looking lustfully. That was my point.
I think you’d be surprised by the scholarly consensus in a lot of areas. It’s just like any other ancient text in that regard.
LikeLike
We definitely don’t have scholarly consensus on whatever point you thought you were making.
LikeLike
There’s no scholarly consensus on what Jesus meant about the looking-with-lust passage? That’s news to me.
LikeLike
Do you know … sometimes .. you’re a little irritating! 🙂 I expect the scholarly consensus is along the lines of what I said – God is the thought police. Please tell me if I’m wrong.
LikeLike
Not trying to be irritating, I promise.
The common conception may very well be God-is-thought-police, but I seriously doubt you’d find any exposition of that passage that condemns thoughts alone. It’s always “These things are bad if you entertain them.”
LikeLike
You have in no way explained to me how the Jesus quote I kindly provided doesn’t condemn the thought alone. Over thinking what a ‘look’ and ‘thought’ is doesn’t detract from the sense of the sentence. It’s VERY clear.
LikeLike
Rather than try to demonstrate on my own, I’ll simply turn to Clarke’s commentary on this passage:
“It is the earnest wish or desire of the soul, which, in a variety of cases, constitutes the good or evil of an act. If a man earnestly wish to commit an evil, but cannot, because God puts time, place, and opportunity out of his power, he is fully chargeable with the iniquity of the act, by that God who searches and judges the heart.”
Covetousness is not merely the fleeting desire or attraction toward something, but the willful impulse which would lead to action given opportunity.
Of course, the fear-mongering hellfire-and-brimstone of modern evangelicalism isn’t exactly representing this with any degree of accuracy.
LikeLike
Because this is an *interpretation* grasping for something reasonable out of a clearly unacceptable statement. Take it in all its basic glory – there’s no need to try and make it something it’s not.
I would suggest that scholarly consensus is just the big collective sigh of relief that someone’s used other words to make all the rubbish sound acceptable. “Ah yes, that must be it!” If God isn’t the thought police, he shouldn’t have inspired gospel-writers to report the words of his son/him saying he is.
LikeLike
I think your interpretation is a little on the overly specific side.
Jesus DIDN’T say, “Any man who, upon looking at a woman, discovers he has lust is committing adultery.” He said, “Any man whose act of looking is lustful in nature is committing adultery.” See the difference?
LikeLike
I’m not really interpreting, I’m just reading the words.
LikeLike
You’re reading “looks with lust”, but you’re claiming “thinks about adultery”. I’m honestly not sure why you think these two things are equivalent.
LikeLike
“You’re reading “looks with lust”, but you’re claiming “thinks about adultery”. I’m honestly not sure why you think these two things are equivalent.”
Haha, are you serious? I don’t they’re equivalent. Jesus thinks they’re equivalent!!! Read the Jesus quote – what on earth are you arguing about?
LikeLike
But Jesus isn’t saying “thinks about adultery.” You are.
LikeLike
I’m making no connection here, they aren’t my words. Jesus is saying if you give a lustful look, you’ve committed adultery. If you look at someone and think, “mmmm, nice, I wonder …” you have committed the sin of adultery. Thought crimes. Read it again, I’m not sure your glasses were working the first time:
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
LikeLike
How do you know that “giving a lustful look” translates to “mmmm, nice, I wonder”?
The word for “lust” (epithymeō) is the word used for covetousness, which is a lot more than merely “looking”.
LikeLike
Read this:
http://missyjbetts.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/184/
LikeLike
Read and replied.
LikeLike
Sin is an imaginary disease invented to sell an imaginary cure.
LikeLike
I get seriously disturbed reading the way some Christians express themselves with regards to sin. They guiltily revel in it to give them an extra special *need* and special relationship with their imaginary god. Repression is so counter-productive. Unless it makes you need the services of superman.
LikeLike
It’s why so many are literally obsessed with sex. What other reason would an aging white male have to be interested in a woman’s reproductive rights? (I’m writing a post on this…)
LikeLike
I think there’s an easy answer to that. The more kids Catholics have, the more they look good in international belief stats. Like you say, even you’re included. It’s a game to see what cult can get the most names on paper. 🙂
LikeLike
Sweet Jesus…. a theistic popularity contest!
LikeLike
Well, we know they’re not in the for the souls. Because they weigh exactly nothing.
LikeLike
Not 21 grams? 😉
LikeLike
It’s total prurience. Nothing more.
LikeLike
BTW, love the photo
LikeLike
Thank you so much! You’ve just overtaken Ark as my favourite blogger with that comment!
LikeLike
What a creep! You looking trawling for brownie points Mr.Kande. Sheesh!
LikeLike
You both seem to have an unhealthy obsession with lavender. Don’t get me wrong, i love the little purple beauty, but there comes a point…..
LikeLike
It’s sage!
LikeLike
No I’m not! 😉
LikeLike
”Where does he mention thought in this passage? Looking lustfully is an action, not a thought.”’
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lust
1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire.
3. a passionate or overwhelming desire or craving (usu. fol. by for): a lust for power.
4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: a lust for life.
5. Obs.
a. pleasure or delight.
b. desire; inclination; wish.
v.i.
6. to have intense sexual desire.
7. to have a passionate yearning or desire (often fol. by for or after).
[before 900; Middle English luste, Old English lust, c. Old Frisian, Old High German lust, Old Norse lyst, Gothic lustus; compare list4]
You are just being incredibly pedantic.
As I mentioned before, I hope to your god you aren’t like this with your wife and especially your kid, otherwise he/she is going need therapy.
And don’t be surprised if your child turns on you one day and tells you to shut your cake hole.
A friendly warning from The Ark.
LikeLike
physicsandwhiskey may not see this because I don’t think you’ve replied to him. I don’t think he’s being pedantic at all, I think he’s having problems reading. And the fact that he can’t relate his inability to understand the most basic interpretation of the sentence to our previous conversations about *his* interpretations of things, speaks volumes. He thinks because he’s a scientist that words can all be compressed into absolute numbers. Anyway, what about the pretty picture?
LikeLike
If he is as intelligent as I suspect he knows exactly the game he is playing. His responses to you are indicative of an anal retentive, “No I’m not a fundamentalist anymore….honest” who performed in the same manner when he was ”batting for the other side”.
Now he just wants to correct all the ignorant atheists and show the godless the right way to be atheist.
I used to have a ‘mate ‘like this . The quickest way to shut them up was to agree with them.
he’ll be in line for a ”Silly Person” before long.
Oh,and if you feel the need to direct him to any missed comments…go ahead. I know you love to pot stir.
I love those blue flowers. What are they, please?
LikeLike
All the blues and purples are types of non-edible sage. I think the bluer one is meadow sage, and the purpler one in the background is Mexican woolly sage.
LikeLike
Pedantic?
I’m just asking questions. You’re the one citing big dictionary entries. How do you know Jesus was talking about 5b and not 3?
LikeLike
BUT THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT!!!! Interpretation. 🙂
LikeLike
Interpretation of the dictionary?
LikeLike
See what I mean? That ”Silly Person”’ award is a hair’s breadth away.
LikeLike
”Pedantic?
I’m just asking questions. You’re the one citing big dictionary entries. How do you know Jesus was talking about 5b and not 3?”
You are beginning to display ‘talking donkey characteristics.
I would venture that Jesus, knew EXACTLY what he meant and if you had been standing next to him at the time of this particular utterance and went on in the manner you believe you are so good at He would have given you a ding around the ear hole for being a talking donkey…sorry, I mean ass, of course.
LikeLike
I’m sure he did know exactly what he meant. I’m asking how you do.
I think his usage of the word is consistent with definition #3 you listed. How do you know it’s actually #5b and not #3? What makes your interpretation more valid than mine?
LikeLike
Because you would be in a teeny weeny minority. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case your are more than likely way out left field. But if you feel strong enough about it …go chat with the local vicar or whatever you have out there and tell him he’s wrong too – a la consensus I believe. Maybe we can get a brand new interpretation based on your reading of it. And why the hell not? It’s all make believe any way so arguing about it is merely point scoring. Futile.
LikeLike
To my knowledge, most commentaries agree with me on this one, actually. Note where I cited Clarke above.
But seriously, what is this? You’re saying that this passage has only one possible interpretation, that you know what it is, and that no other interpretation is potentially valid. Who’s acting like a fundamentalist now?
LikeLike
I really don;lt care to be honest. Why argue about make believe? It was fun for five minutes. Now it’s plain silly. You are right.
LikeLike
Look! Look! I got a ‘Point taken.’ from physicsandwhiskey!!!!!!! Do you think he means it or he’s just bored even himself?
LikeLike
I think he is trying got humour the pre-schoolers.
LikeLike
”To humour”….frigging no edit function.
LikeLike
Nah, he just knows he got his ass whupped!
LikeLike
I think you’re missing the point (again). Regardless of what definition of ‘lust’ you choose to take, Jesus is telling people that God is policing their thoughts. This post is about the ‘lure of the forbidden’. If Jesus tells his followers that God is policing their thoughts and (accepting your assertion) that if they have an overwhelming desire to have sex with a woman who is not their wife it is a SIN and they are therefore committing adultery, even a glance with mild desire from a Christian will spark off alarm bells in their head for most of them. “I’m almost sinning, I’m almost sinning, don’t take that thought anywhere, don’t be attracted, don’t entertain the thought …. shit, shit, shite.” You know what I mean. The more you try not to think about something, the more you will think about it. Fact. (But I am quite sure that the silly man reporting the words of the character Jesus, was meaning definition 5b, which makes it even funnier).
LikeLike
Point taken.
LikeLike
Just so we (you, me and Ark) are all clear. I’m right and you’re wrong. And you wasted everyone’s time pedantically arguing about an aspect of no relevance. Is that about right? (It was fun though!) 🙂
LikeLike
Not at all. You’re clinging to a preferred interpretation like a prooftexting fundamentalist. =P
Fun though? Yes.
Your global point, about the way Christian views of thought crime make them more prone to sin, was spot-on. That’s the point I was agreeing with.
LikeLike
That was the point I was making. So we’ve agree I won. Fantastic!!
LikeLike
😀
LikeLike
Pingback: clarification for christian readers | violetwisp