Desire is definitely an area that needs to be studied. The whole Lust Fallacy is one that is used to foist neo-Christianity on the sheople.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Polygyny and Male Attraction
- Thread starter Eristhophanes
- Start date
GloryGirl
Member
I'm not familiar with the term Lust Fallacy. I can certainly parse out the gist based on the words, but this is apparently a cultural reference to a specific belief. Would you define it please?
Eristhophanes
Member
I can't speak for @Zec, but...
In Matthew 5:28, Jesus said that a man who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
To break it down, Lust = Adultery in the heart.
Adultery requires a married woman and there can be no adultery without a married woman because adultery is the crime/sin of a man who has sexual intercourse with a married woman who is not his wife.
That said, can a man look at an eligible, unmarried woman and lust? The answer is no, it is impossible to commit adultery with her because she isn't married. Yet, young men are taught and have been taught for centuries that looking at *any* woman with desire is lust, which is sinful.
That is the lust-fallacy I think Zec was referring to.
One could just as easily say "adultery-fallacy" because the vast majority of Christians believe if a married man has sex with any woman other than his wife he has committed adultery. This is one of the central (and incorrect) arguments against polygyny that was fostered by the Catholic church a long time ago.
In Matthew 5:28, Jesus said that a man who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
To break it down, Lust = Adultery in the heart.
Adultery requires a married woman and there can be no adultery without a married woman because adultery is the crime/sin of a man who has sexual intercourse with a married woman who is not his wife.
That said, can a man look at an eligible, unmarried woman and lust? The answer is no, it is impossible to commit adultery with her because she isn't married. Yet, young men are taught and have been taught for centuries that looking at *any* woman with desire is lust, which is sinful.
That is the lust-fallacy I think Zec was referring to.
One could just as easily say "adultery-fallacy" because the vast majority of Christians believe if a married man has sex with any woman other than his wife he has committed adultery. This is one of the central (and incorrect) arguments against polygyny that was fostered by the Catholic church a long time ago.
The word γυνή is a fertile woman (not a maiden, not a crone) and is the word translated 'wife' where that word appears in the English NT. On the other hand, ἐπιθυμέω just means desire (translated 'lust' in the KJV and followed later by more recent translations, even though the word 'lust' 400 years ago just meant 'desire' to those using it back then, and did not connote sexual desire per se (even though that's how our modern English usage works).
So a translation that made sense back in the 1600s isn't working today. Jesus didn't say that any man that looks at any woman and desires her is committing adultery. He said that any man that allows himself to desire a woman that is already someone else's is committing adultery. Actually makes a lot more sense if you think about it.
And I can't leave this subject without calling ballshot on our culture's (including the corporate church's) viciously anti-male agenda. It's not just that according to a correct understanding of the text married women are off-limits and single women are fair game. It's that a man's 'desire' for a woman occurs on so many levels other than sexual, and doesn't necessarily prioritize or sometimes even include the sexual. The sexual component is obviously at issue in this particular passage because of the potential escalation to adultery, a sexual crime. But I reject the currently prevalent notion that all men are latent rapists or pædophiles and that some of us are just better at barely containing it than others. The "Lust Fallacy" feeds into the idea that all men have a hard time controlling their ability to interact with all women because of their raging "lusts", and is just a really bad but re-e-eally effective way of shaming and manipulating men in our culture just for being men.
So a translation that made sense back in the 1600s isn't working today. Jesus didn't say that any man that looks at any woman and desires her is committing adultery. He said that any man that allows himself to desire a woman that is already someone else's is committing adultery. Actually makes a lot more sense if you think about it.
And I can't leave this subject without calling ballshot on our culture's (including the corporate church's) viciously anti-male agenda. It's not just that according to a correct understanding of the text married women are off-limits and single women are fair game. It's that a man's 'desire' for a woman occurs on so many levels other than sexual, and doesn't necessarily prioritize or sometimes even include the sexual. The sexual component is obviously at issue in this particular passage because of the potential escalation to adultery, a sexual crime. But I reject the currently prevalent notion that all men are latent rapists or pædophiles and that some of us are just better at barely containing it than others. The "Lust Fallacy" feeds into the idea that all men have a hard time controlling their ability to interact with all women because of their raging "lusts", and is just a really bad but re-e-eally effective way of shaming and manipulating men in our culture just for being men.
The Lust Fallacy is simply that. It's a slew of false teaching around lust. The modern church has minimized lust to sexual attraction to a woman the church and government haven't sanctioned a man to be attracted to. The word has become so watered down and misapplied as to be useless for anything other than giving neo-Christian women an excuse to sit in judgement of their husbands and for those husbands to justify their spiritual negligence.
This is a prime example of the traditions of men being used to make null the Word of God.
Our pastor, from a Christian Missionary Alliance church, preached a solid sermon this Sunday that brushed up against an integrated Bible being the standard for behavior. I was very pleased. However, in dealing with pornography he was shocked and perplexed by the fact that women engage in it too. He was completely unsurprised about men viewing it obvious but he seemed to think women were above such things.
The idea that women have an elevated morality and a Teflon coating as concerns temptation is hard baked into out society, especially the church. It surfaces in the court system and family law as well. Its very strange when you think about it. Where did this perception come from?
I struggle with the thought that women have desires not related to ruining a man's whole life.
(just kidding!)
Entire systems are put in place to, in my opinion, promote exactly what is said here. I have seen in the court system with a friend who married a woman, they had a child together, she was mentally unstable and that became more and more apparent as time went on. After about a year and a half of turmoil our friend had decided enough was enough and was planning to divorce as he felt he had exhausted all other efforts. In spite she went to a special advocate, was given a free attorney and filed "marital rape" charges. He read through the papers and was shocked at the lies put forth but the way the papers were put forward it did not seem that it was a criminal offense being charged and of course no officer ever showed up to put him in cuffs. I offered to drive him the day of court and be in his corner for support....by the end of the hearing I too was in total dismay. We arrived at the set hearing time, checked in when asked at roll call by the Judge....she was nowhere to be found. At the end of the hearing times when we figured there was not going to be a hearing and got up to leave the judge called his case and out of side door walks an attorney, a counselor, said woman and an advocate. They were allowed to put forth testimony, question our friend on the stand, make accusations with no evidence....and all this with NO opposition, our friend was in complete shock and did not possess the ability to even defend himself in a court!!! At the end the judge found in favor of the woman, put a restraining order in place to include their baby, stated that if one more instance was brought up then criminal charges would be brought and sex offender status would be recommended!! Now what kind of culture does this generate? How do we fight against this type of tyranny...and yes I feel that is exactly what it is. I am sorry to say that after about 4 months our friend ended up going back to crazy lady, and about 6 months after that they moved and I lost track of him. The last conversation we had I asked why he would live in such misery, "what choice do I have if I want to see my child and try to raise him with some kind of morals and standards" Sad days, very sad days.
A lot of people have simply no idea how bad it has gotten in the family courts. For an eye-opener, check out the 2014 documentary Divorce Corp.
Teaser: "More money flows through the family courts, and into the hands of courthouse insiders, than all other court systems in America combined - over $50 billion a year and growing." Have I got your attention?
Teaser: "More money flows through the family courts, and into the hands of courthouse insiders, than all other court systems in America combined - over $50 billion a year and growing." Have I got your attention?
golden2seal
New Member
Eristhophanes, I Agree. I hope you don't get thrown off here for telling it like it is. I can fully relate to your posts. I have read all these posts. I find them very interesting and some, knowledgeable.
I am glad to see that FollowingHim has grown in knowledge in the past few years, and is more willing to accept truth.
Andrew, the Corporate Churches is a Plague, and is just for people control.
I just wanted to say thanks for a good read, and good info which is something much needed in the world today.
EJ.
I am glad to see that FollowingHim has grown in knowledge in the past few years, and is more willing to accept truth.
Andrew, the Corporate Churches is a Plague, and is just for people control.
I just wanted to say thanks for a good read, and good info which is something much needed in the world today.
EJ.
Well, yeah, duh. Seems kinda random in this thread, though. What's your point?
Why doesn't the game work with women who have personality disorders?
So when the Calvinists say that free will doesn't exist, maybe they're right..
We all have a free will, if not then we are just robots. Adam had a choice eat or not, David had a choice sex with Bathsheba or not.
We all have a choice, the question is do we make the right choice or not.
YaHWeH the LORD is not a dictator.
C
Cap
Guest
So what would have happened if Adam did not eat or David did not have sex? Or we don't do the things that cause us to fail and learn forgiveness?
We have free will only as much as God gives it to us. As the Oracle in matrix says, you didn’t come here to make choices. You already made it. You’re here to try to understand why you made it.
Free will is linear thought from our point of view, but from God's point of view our choices are within God's realm of possibilities.
Last edited by a moderator:
