• 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.

Biblical or not

Gentlemen if you can gain a correct perspective on this issue it will free you from a life of bondage and shame that has been placed upon you due to the incorrect teachings about this subject. The church standard about this issue is completely impossible to keep and is a tool used to keep men walking through life defeated and emasculated. Study this subject out and remove your cultural bias. You will be glad you did.

Here’s the whole deal men!!! Boom!

#Pacmanpimpdaddy
 
This word translated "lust" is also translated "passion" in quite a few other translations of this verse. Would the same argument be made against having passion? I think the problem is the modern church's misunderstanding and teaching of what lust is. I take it not so much as "blanket sexual desire" as it is "desire (in any way/shape/form) of something that belongs to another".

I think you are very close but I would add the thought that it’s desire to unlawfully possess. And maybe this is a distinction without a difference but when it comes to almost anything a man owns (except for his women) there is a way to lawfully possess them. If he is willing you can buy his house or car... you can lawfully take his daughter as well. So the standard isn’t just don’t desire someone else’s possession it’s don’t desire to steal it...
 
Last edited:
there is a line that you can cross that becomes lust.
That line is called "ownership". :)

When I was in the military i saw it all the time. I had a buddy who was married for 2 and a half weeks to a girl he only new for 3 days before they were wed. Was she hot? Most definitely but this chick was a new level of crazy.
That's not lust, just poor decision making and thinking with the wrong "head". :D
 
I think you are very close but I would add the thought that it’s desire to unlawfully possess. And maybe this is a distinction without a difference but when it comes to almost anything a man owns (except for his women) there is a way to lawfully possess them. If he is willing you can buy his house or car... you can lawfully take his daughter as well assuming he agrees to it. So the standard isn’t just don’t desire someone else’s possession it’s don’t desire to steel it...
Agreed! :)
 
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

I could be wrong but I think Adam was looking at her shape...and I don't think God reprimanded him for it...;)
 
Ok fine.

Romans 7:7 KJV
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

1 Corinthians 12:31 KJV
[31] But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

1 Corinthians 14:39 KJV
[39] Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Bad things are bad to desire, other people’s things are bad to desire, good things are good to desire.
I just strong s these to see if they were using the word for lust but they are not. They are using the Greek word usually translated to jealous.

éloó: to be jealous
Original Word: ζηλόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: zéloó
Phonetic Spelling: (dzay-lo'-o)
Definition: to be jealous
Usage: (a) intrans: I am jealous, (b) trans: I am jealous of, with acc. of a person; I am eager for, am eager to possess, with acc. of a thing.

1 Timothy 3:1 NASB
[1] It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.


That word desire is the same Greek word translated as lust elsewhere...
This is translated from the word meaning to reach for.

oeegó: to stretch out, to reach after, to yearn for
Original Word: ὀρέγω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: oregó
Phonetic Spelling: (or-eg'-om-ahee)
Definition: to stretch out, to reach after, to yearn for
Usage: I stretch forth, mid: I hanker after, long for, am eager for, aspire to.


New testament word translated to lust.

Epithumia: desire, passionate longing, lust
Original Word: ἐπιθυμία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: epithumia
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-ee-thoo-mee'-ah)
Definition: desire, passionate longing, lust
Usage: desire, eagerness for, inordinate desire, lust.
 
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

I could be wrong but I think Adam was looking at her shape...and I don't think God reprimanded him for it...;)
I think they miss translated it in our modern bibles. In the original it says “she shall be called WHOA MAN!! because she was taken out of man”:p
 
I just strong s these to see if they were using the word for lust but they are not. They are using the Greek word usually translated to jealous.

éloó: to be jealous
Original Word: ζηλόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: zéloó
Phonetic Spelling: (dzay-lo'-o)
Definition: to be jealous
Usage: (a) intrans: I am jealous, (b) trans: I am jealous of, with acc. of a person; I am eager for, am eager to possess, with acc. of a thing.


This is translated from the word meaning to reach for.

oeegó: to stretch out, to reach after, to yearn for
Original Word: ὀρέγω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: oregó
Phonetic Spelling: (or-eg'-om-ahee)
Definition: to stretch out, to reach after, to yearn for
Usage: I stretch forth, mid: I hanker after, long for, am eager for, aspire to.


New testament word translated to lust.

Epithumia: desire, passionate longing, lust
Original Word: ἐπιθυμία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: epithumia
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-ee-thoo-mee'-ah)
Definition: desire, passionate longing, lust
Usage: desire, eagerness for, inordinate desire, lust.

Same word as is used in Matthew 5:28 bro.
 
We can do this all day and I'm with you guys for the most part. The Church has demonized sex and sexuality. What i worry about which is an equal error is going to far in the other direction becoming full of lust. I guess I just want to add a little caution.
 
We can do this all day and I'm with you guys for the most part. The Church has demonized sex and sexuality. What i worry about which is an equal error is going to far in the other direction becoming full of lust. I guess I just want to add a little caution.
I think that is a good attitude to have. I would encourage you to keep studying it out, brother. :)
 
Strong's Number
G1937
Original Word
ἐπιθυμέω
Transliterated Word
epithumeō
Phonetic Spelling
ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o
Parts of Speech
Verb
Strong's Definition
From G1909 and G2372; to set the heart upon that is long for (rightfully or otherwise): - covet desire would fain lust (after).
Thayer's Definition
  1. to turn upon a thing

  2. to have a desire for, long for, to desire

  3. to lust after, covet
    1. of those who seek things forbidden
Usage by Word
long (3), covet (2), desire (2), desired(2), lust (2), coveted (1), craved (1), desires (1), gladly (1), longing (1), sets(1)
Usage by Book
Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, Revelation
 
Same word. I can post every verse if you like
 

Attachments

  • 9AF55640-5A70-4545-92FE-89F574F9D73A.png
    9AF55640-5A70-4545-92FE-89F574F9D73A.png
    241.6 KB · Views: 4
Deserves its own thread, but several posts here have talked about, or warned against, adding ho the commandment. It seems to me that this us more serious than we realize.

Consider: Eve added to the command when she answered the adversary with, 'we are not to touch or eat of the tree.' The actual command was don't eat. Touching was never a part..

Now, is it possible, that the adversary has no case/no footing when we cite Scripture only, BUT he can tempt, even viciously, when we add to or take away from the commandment. I.e., does our altering the command allow him greater access than if we simply stick to the command. Another way, does our self righteousness, based in a wrong understanding or obedience to the command open us up to the adversary?

@Pacman specifically touched on this when he said,
Gentlemen if you can gain a correct perspective on this issue it will free you from a life of bondage and shame that has been placed upon you due to the incorrect teachings about this subject. The church standard about this issue is completely impossible to keep and is a tool used to keep men walking through life defeated and emasculated. Study this subject out and remove your cultural bias. You will be glad you did.

Thoughts?
 
Deserves its own thread, but several posts here have talked about, or warned against, adding ho the commandment. It seems to me that this us more serious than we realize.

Consider: Eve added to the command when she answered the adversary with, 'we are not to touch or eat of the tree.' The actual command was don't eat. Touching was never a part..

Now, is it possible, that the adversary has no case/no footing when we cite Scripture only, BUT he can tempt, even viciously, when we add to or take away from the commandment. I.e., does our altering the command allow him greater access than if we simply stick to the command. Another way, does our self righteousness, based in a wrong understanding or obedience to the command open us up to the adversary?

@Pacman specifically touched on this when he said,


Thoughts?

So are you saying @Asforme&myhouse and I are going to hell. :)

I know you guys are trying to have serious discussion. I'll stop. :)
 
Back
Top