"MOMMY - Why is Cinderella Showing Her Chest?"

[Annie]

.
Ascetic religions have created thousands of warped psyches and totally unnecessary guilt complexes by their unbiblical attitudes toward the male libido; and at the heart of it is the passage below.

If you are going to throw around psychological terms, you need to define them in order for them to relate to this discussion. Does Scripture have anything to say about "warped psyches" and "guilt complexes"? If not, then you need to show how and why they belong in a discussion about Scriptural issues.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by ascetic religions in this context. Scripture repeatedly enjoins denial, mortification, and crucifixion of fleshly desires in favor of walking in the Spirit. Does this fact make Christianity an ascetic religion in your opinion? If not, why not? If so, why so? (Just attempting to have you define terms and clarify your comments.)

†. Mtt 5:27-28 . .Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which means: to set the heart upon.

Another way to define this word, according to Greek dictionaries, is to desire strongly. (I'm sure you know that.)

Jesus' comment about adultery in Mtt 5:27-29 wasn't a new and improved version of adultery, but was already in place written into one of Moses' covenanted laws that forbids coveting anything, and everything, that belongs to your fellow man.

†. Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his a_s, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to "covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy (1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the full intention of possessing it.

This is where you begin to go wrong...the "full intention of possessing it" is not a part of the bare-bones definition of covet/lust. Lusting/coveting is defined as "a strong desire," or, as you've said, "a setting of the heart on." Depending on the context (as in 1 Cor. 14:9), other meaning could be added to it. There is no "action" other than "looking" involved in the context of Mt. 5. Looking with strong desire = adultery.

Neither Ex 20:17 nor Mtt 5:27-28 condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido

Whoa, whoa, back up the tape...What are "erotic fantasies"? I'll let you define this term.

no, those passages condemn premeditated adultery— which eo ipso implies conspiracy to commit adultery —and adultery is a sin committed with married people; not with single people. Adultery involves at least one married person in the affair. Single people sleeping together aren't adulterers; they're just immoral.

Not sure what your point is here...Seems a bit off our topic.

Jesus' teaching isn't about the so-called evils of sexual desire, but about scheming to sleep with a married woman. For a man to even have a plan like that in his head is the same as having already implemented it. But as far as I know, it's okay for men to drool over married women all they want as long as they don't start scheming on one fully intending to actually have an affair with her and taste the goods.

Stop. the. tape!!! Let's rewind and unpack what you are saying here...
You said, "Jesus' teaching isn't about the so-called evils of sexual desire, but about scheming to sleep with a married woman." You've jumped to "sleeping with a married woman" now as the definition of adultery. Is this the only definition? Would you think that your wife had betrayed you/committed adultery against you if she undressed herself in the presence of another (married) man and allowed him to grope her, kiss her, and do everything BUT "sleep with her"? Or (another situation) would you feel betrayed if your wife freely allowed another man to undress her and say, "Boy, baby, you are hot. I am imagining what I'd love to do with your body if you were not a married woman. I'd start by...and then I'd..." If this is not sinful, why not? If it is, why so? Is it adultery? Would you encourage your wife to "minister" in this way, to help preserve and encourage male libido and the survival of humans on earth?

I guess one thing I'm getting at here is this: Even IF (and it's a big IF) the actions I described above are not classified as "adultery," are they godly and right, or are they fleshly and sinful? Would Jesus have behaved in such a manner?

†. Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.

The emphasis there is not upon carnal lusts, but rather, upon making provision to fulfill those carnal lusts; which has the distinction of being the correct interpretation of Mtt 5:27-28.

So then, are Moses and/or Jesus, saying that I can't look across the street at my neighbor's Mercedes and drool over it, turning green with envy? Or that I can't gape at his buxom young wife, undressing her with my eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her? No, covetousness doesn't imply that at all. Covetousness implies my forming a plan in my head to take the neighbor's buxom young wife, and his Mercedes away from him.

Once again, you make assumptions and jump to conclusions. What does "make not provision" mean in practical, daily living? Is "flesh" a positive or negative entity in the NT? If it is negative, then why should we encourage anything relating to it? Why should a godly, Spirit-filled man dwell ("gape," etc.) on anything that proceeds from "the flesh"? And why should a godly woman encourage a man to do so?

And why stop with the eyes? Why not undress her in person? Why not express those "innocent erotic fantasies" verbally?

I know I didn't address the rest of your post. Maybe I can do that later. Perhaps in the meantime, you can answer my comments above. Edited August 25, 2010 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

"I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?"

JOB. 31:1,

Edited August 25, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[Brother Rick]

I might reiterate, Webber went straight to the Greek to prove his twisted viewpoint. The number one rule of Scripture interpretation is to go to other passages in the Bible to prove your point, not to delve deeper into the Greek or even a dictionary. While those sources might be helpful, they can be mishandled easily.

Anyone can get weird by going to the Greek, because one Greek word can have so many different translations into English that you can pick and choose what fits you best. On the flip side though, the safest and most accurate way to interpret Scripture is to find other passages that clearly support what you're trying to demonstrate. Webber has, of course, failed to provide any Scripture that clearly demonstrates that it's ok to lust after women, and many individuals here have presented verses that clearly show that that lust is, surprise-surprise, a sin.

There, that's my best attempt to answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[Pastor Matt]

Children, need I remind you that gossip is a sin, and that it is very poor netiquette to hijack a topic for the purpose of posting comments about a forum member.

Please send me a PM stating where the gossip took place. Everything that I read was told to your face. Please send me a PM explaining where the gossip took place so that I can deal with it accordingly.

[John81]

Good posts Annie and Rick!

The fact is, there is no biblical defense for that which is biblically indefensible!

Scripture is clear that sex is to be between a husband wife only. This applies to sexual thoughts, imaginations, what our eyes look upon, as well as physical contact.

What is being put forth, the perverted notion that it's okay to have erotic fantasies about someone you are not married to or that it's fine to undress someone elses wife with your eyes, is totally unbiblical.

The world, the flesh and the devil proclaim that sex is about entertainment, but Scripture says sex is an exclusive, intimate partnership between a husband wife for procreation and unity in marriage.

[Annie]

OK, while C.L.I.F.F. is formulating an answer which defines and describes his "innocent erotic fantasies" (specific descriptions would be great; since he's not ashamed of them, and we shouldn't be either, he shouldn't hesitate to post an example here), and attempts to clarify why "drooling" and "gaping" and "visually undressing" a married woman with his eyes is condoned--even encouraged--by God in order to preserve and propagate the human species, I thought I'd address the remainder of his extraordinary post.

You know, it's ironic that traditionalists preach and preach about Adam's fall while glossing over the fact that his first impulse after eating the forbidden fruit was to cover his pelvic region. And why would he do that? Answer: because he became 1) self conscious about his appearance, and 2) he felt guilty about his feelings in connection with sex and the human body, that's why.

Is this what Scripture says? If this is true, why didn't God address this issue with Adam directly, instead of (gasp!) covering him up with something more substantial?

Every time a traditionalist gets up on a soap box and preaches about the evils of erotic fantasies and the sinfulness of sexual urges, desires, and feelings; all they're really doing is justifying their fig leaves and revealing their own Adam-given guilt complex in connection with sex and the human body. In the beginning, man felt neither shame nor guilt in connection with sex and the human body: now he's riddled with it. Man's guilt complex is so ingrained that he actually welcomes the traditional interpretation of Mtt 5:27-29 as a means of saying: "I knew it! Fascination with sex and the human body is wrong; just as I thought". Well of course that's what he thought because he got that thinking from a fallen Adam, rather than from an innocent Adam.

You are correct that married men (which Adam was) should not feel guilty about sexual desires toward their wives. If that's what Adam was feeling, then of course he needed to be set straight (again, no record of God doing this...hmmm...).

Most Christians are totally unaware that their subconscious guilt complex in connection with sex and the human body has a powerful influence upon the way they interpret not only Mtt 5:27-28, but also upon the way they interpret every other passage in the Bible related to sex, the human body, and one's physical appearance.

Amazing! You proceed with such rapidity to build on your presupposition which has absolutely no Scriptural foundation. And, again, you haven't described what a "guilt complex" is, or even proven that such a thing exists.

In point of fact, without their realizing it, they are actually shoe-horning their guilt complex into Christ's teachings, and it's blinding them to the words, grammar, and syntax of his comments, thus causing them to miss that he was actually introducing nothing new in the Sermon On The Mount, but merely reiterating the sixth and the tenth commandments in a way that the rabbis of his day didn't usually do.

Have you read this verse in context? If so, what makes you think that Christ was merely restating the sixth and tenth commandments? And, if he was restating them (which is dubious, considering the context), how does that bolster your interpretation that looking at a woman with lustful desires is not the same as committing adultery with her?

BTW: I think it's very significant that Eve didn't make herself a fig-leaf blouse. You know, even today in primitive cultures, women are topless and nOBody thinks anything about it. A bare-bosomed Cinderella is perfectly normal in their world. So then what does that tell me? It tells me that civilized cultures are even more self-conscious, and even more guilt-ridden about sex and the human body than Adam and Eve were.

This is a point to be considered, of course, but it's not the real issue. The civilizations which embrace nudity are, to my knowledge, ones which are pagan/spiritistic and have not been touched by the light of Christianity. And, the very fact that you "drool" as you visually "undress" women shows that you yourself have "erotic fantasies" at the thought of a woman's naked breasts. And you'd better believe a man like you (read: creep) would make me "self-conscious" (and my husband dangerous!) as you tried to avail yourself visually/erotically of something which belongs to him, and is private between the two of us only.

†. Rev 3:18 . .I counsel thee to buy of me . . . white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear

What's he saying? That nakedness is shameful? (chuckle) No, were it shameful, God would have created Adam and Eve fully clothed. No, what he's saying is, that if you can't stand before Christ exposed in full frontal nudity and feel perfectly at ease, then you are a sinful being because innocent beings feel no self consciousness in full frontal nudity.

†. Gen 2:25 . . And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

So then, what's represented by the white raiment? Some would say it's the righteousness of Christ; and I fully agree; but we need to flesh that out a bit. In practicality; the righteousness of Christ is innocence.

Does reading this post make you squirm? And what does that say about you? It says you are unable to be OBjective about sex and the human body; but rather, you are self conscious: you are fallen.

Of COURSE we are fallen! Before men fell, there was no need for clothing, because there was no shame. After the fall, God himself (not just Adam and Eve) clothed Adam and Eve, setting a precedent for FALLEN man. Until we are free of sin (which won't happen as long as we're on earth), we bear the shame introduced by Adam and verified by God.

And, no, this post doesn't "make me squirm." It makes me laugh, actually. And (not to introduce another aspect to this discussion), there is a way to be OBjective about sex and the human body. Health care professionals, policemen, medical researchers, morticians, and coroners do it every day. But naked human bodies in a clinical context affect a man completely differently than in the context which makes you "drool" and have "erotic fantasies" (still waiting for an explanation of that term, btw). Edited August 27, 2010 by Annie

[OFIB Preacher]

Complete Article by my wife.


(My four year old daughter asked me, with no previous prompting and much to my discomfort, that question. Do you see a difference? It's so subtle I didn't even notice, but it wasn't subtle to the innocent unconditioned mind of a little child. Out of the mouths of babes.)

In the first few years of my marriage, I became aware of three marriages that were affected by pornography within my circle of friends. In two of the cases, the men refused to change their ways and the marriages ended and children were left without an intact home. In the third case, the man repented and through God’s grace, forgiveness, some boundaries and accountability the marriage was restored.

Around the same time as this, someone lent me the book, “Created to be His Helpmeet” by Debi Pearl and somehow we got the book “Every Man’s Battle.” Both dealt openly with the struggles of men with pornography. In the book “Every Man’s Battle” I read that there was a survey done among Christian men and 60% of the Christian men said that they had viewed pornography in the past six months. I was bombarded with the topic from all sides. I shook while sOBbing as I watched "Fireproof." I was overwhelmed, disgusted, discouraged and distrustful of all men, even my own husband.

I didn’t want to have anything to do with the internet, shopping catalogs, commercials, women joggers, cleavage baring women, the grocery store aisle, short skirts or skin tight clothing. I wanted to cry at the thought that my husband would even have to struggle to not look at other women. “WHY, Lord, WHY?”

My husband was super yielding to my paranoia. I talked to him a lot about the temptations of men, and he acknowledged that it was everywhere. He said that regarding the internet, it is a difficult thing for men because in Proverbs it speaks about avoiding a woman in the attire of a harlot. He mentioned these verses specifically:

Proverbs 7:6 – 8, “For at the window of my house I looked through my casement, And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding, Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house,

He said that it is increasingly difficult for men to stay pure because they no longer have to “pass through the street near her corner.” Her corner is right in the house.

AN UNSAVED MAN

I battled this distrust of men and asked my boss at the time, who was an unsaved man, some questions regarding his view on the subject. He casually commented that it was just something all men did. It didn’t have to be an addiction; it was sometimes just casual entertainment. This didn’t help my paranoia at all...

Complete Article

IMHO, if Cinderella is showing her chest, sounds like somebody's watching something they shouldn't watch! Also IMHO, if somebody would let their children watch such, what are the parents watching? The last two statements, are purely my opinion and prOBably do not reflect the views of most!

[OFIB Preacher]

Weber--you're full of surprises! You can blame God for infidelity because he made you that way, is that it? He made us that way because we would be too lazy to fulfill the command to "replenish the earth" if he didn't make it easy for us. That's as delicate as I can put it, and I hope everyone keeps it on a "delicate" level throughout the rest of the post. Anyway, restraint is our duty to godliness; God did not put the temptations in front of us all the time, but allows us to chase after our whimsical dreams and fall into the clutches of Satan. Your attitude justifies rather than condemned it, and, though the matter is unquestionable with you, I wonder what the Lord thinks of it? Or perhaps He is not invited into our discussion?

Excellent post, Brother!

[OFIB Preacher]

That's a wordly philosophy, not what Scripture commands.

As for "real men", you should note that Richard Gere is a homosexual. Hardly a "real man".

Scripture is clear with regards to modesty, keeping our eyes from lust or even from the temptation to lust, to protect our hearts and minds from the same.

What you put forth reflects the position of the lost world, not what Scripture teaches and commands, as put forth so well by Rick's wife.

Not only is it wordly, it's worldly! I'd laugh at the slip-up, if the truth weren't so sad.

[OFIB Preacher]

I don't believe women have to lust after tv men or anyone else...I know I sure don't. And its certainly not an excuse for men to look.

And there is NO excuse for a married man to be talking about a hot chick in the office.

If you'll pardon the old country song line, "too many times married men still think they're single!"

[OFIB Preacher]

If it is spicy KFC that is being planned for lunch, I can talk about that hot chick for a long time.

LOL
Plumb funny, BroMatt! I needed that one, to loosen up the gray matter, between my ears!

[OFIB Preacher]

And it seems Webers_Home has made it clear he believes it's okay to fantasize about other mens wives, to undress them with his eyes and to have erotic fantasies about women not his wife so long as he doesn't really plan to actually commit adultery.

All, of course, are biblically incorrect.

Through Christ, men and women both can commit their hearts, eyes and minds to their spouse, forsaking all others as Scripture proclaims.

Excellent post!
AMEN!

[OFIB Preacher]

OK, I'm heating up the tar...

Here! Let me help ya, by turnin' up the boiler a notch, or two! click click
There ya go!

[OFIB Preacher]

Okay Annie, let the dogs loose..................

Run Pete run, fast as ya can! Gotta catch a coon for the preacher man!
Oops? Wrong dogs!
You rascals, get back under the porch!

[OFIB Preacher]

First sign you have an idiot (I use that word charitably considering what he has done here) on your hands is when he starts trying to overthrow the clear teaching of the English Bible that God gave you by twisting it with a warped translation and interpretation from the original languages.

I heard that and that's putting it nicely!