|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/9/2008 5:31:53 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1666
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
A "pop" is not an immoral thought. It's a chemical reaction in the brain that produces a "high" or a pleasant feeling.
Thoughts pop into our heads all the time; men and women. It's a matter of recognizing those thoughts and controlling them. I think Stoeker refers to it as surrending ones thoughts to Christ.
I like QTMan's line about not getting his eye poked out when she put the ring on his finger. We see things that attract us everyday. We can lust after a new car or, in Jimbo's case, a pecan pie. It's a lust to fulfill the desire of the flesh. Yet, to lust in a sexual manner is to make antoher person the object of our desire. We are not thinking about what's best for or even what's good for the other person. We are thinking purely about self and how we will use that person to fulfill selfish desires.
We need to be aware of our thought lives. Our deepest personal thought lives. We need to be honest with ourselves about the matter and, hopefully, have a prayer partner whom we can share as honsetly. This awareness has to extend to those "pops" as well. If one finds him/herself sitting in church and feeling aroused by some thought that just popped into the mind as a result of a sight, smell, sound, or just out of the blue, we need to be able to recognize it and give it to God.
_____________________________
“A dead thing goes with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”
G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/9/2008 6:40:04 PM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 361
Joined: 10/5/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hislittleone
quote:
rcjames: My suggestion is to keep your gaze about the shoulders.
Rc, I think that's a very wise suggestion. 
quote:
JimboFletch: It is a matter of the heart, not the eyes.
I agree completely.
[quote:
quote]SamsonUSA: Nothing is wrong with admiring God's great creation. Wether it be the stars, a mountain range, the desert at night, or a beautiful woman.
That's the part I'm a little confused about. I'm thinking that each person's physical beauty is a part of their sexuality and should be reserved for the marriage partner's pleasure. It's not something that God created for every Tom, Dick and Harry to enjoy.
quote:
JamesL5: It depends on what you mean by admire. If you a married man, there is no reason why you should admire a woman for her beauty other than your own wife. With that said, if you meant admiring another woman out of RESPECT AND DIGNITY.........then I see nothing wrong with that.
Exactly. As a woman, I feel that a man should put that energy and focus on his wife (if he is married, if not then it should be put elsewhere until he is married) not on me. Some of you may be thinking that a glance here and there doesn't take much focus or energy but if you add all those little glances up over a lifetime, it's more than a little.
Here's a thought.... The marriage relationship is to mirror our relationship with Christ. Our God is a jealous God. He does not want us to worship or admire other gods. So wouldn't that kind of be the same thing? If one partner's admiration is being given to someone whom they aren't married to then isn't that just like the church turning to false gods?
I think this all applies to single folks as well. If you aren't married but hope to be one day then all this should be saved for your future spouse. If you never intend to marry then this part of your life (sexuality) belongs to the Lord.
Of course, single people who are dating may wonder how they are supposed to not look at potential mates as either attractive or not. I think the key is in looking at them with respect, as your brother/sister in Christ. Judge them by the fruit in their lives, the beauty of their hearts.
Or maybe it is different for single people who are searching for a spouse. I don't know.  Hopefully in discussing this with you all I'll be able to work out all the kinks in these ideas. 
quote:
quote:
SamsonUSA: Nothing is wrong with admiring God's great creation. Wether it be the stars, a mountain range, the desert at night, or a beautiful woman.
That's the part I'm a little confused about. I'm thinking that each person's physical beauty is a part of their sexuality and should be reserved for the marriage partner's pleasure. It's not something that God created for every Tom, Dick and Harry to enjoy.
This is where we greatly disagree. Physical beauty and sexuality are not joined at the hip. In His timing I pray that someday I will marry a woman that I fall head over heels in love with because I admire her:
A) Walk with the Lord
B) great personality
C) passion to use the gifts He's given her to touch others
And also someone that I find attractive. Call me shallow but in my opinion those that say that a physical attraction isn't a necessary ingredient in dating aren't being honest with themselves.
_____________________________
I lift my eyes unto the hills
Where does my help come from?
My help comes from the Lord
The Maker of Heaven and earth!
Casting Crowns
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/9/2008 7:10:44 PM
|
|
|
Memaw.
Posts: 2460
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Sunflower State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Memaw.
RC, you spoke about keeping the gaze about the shoulders, to some men, the collar bones are very attractive and can lead to "no-no" land. 
(Is this the reason Muslim women are covered head to toe?) 
Well Memaw, I guess I will defer to you on this; as I do not know or never have met any weirdo's that are turned on by a collar bone.
I look at (see, speak to, address, teach, preach to) many females every week, but my seeing them, recognizing them; and that act of looking at them is certainly not lusting after them.
So I must humbly disagree with your assumption.
Thanks
RC
RC,
My point was that even in places where women are covered head to toe, men will find something to lust over, such as an accidentally exposed ankle ....IF LUST IS IN THEIR HEART.
Even Ray Charles, (a blind man) could tell by a womans' forearm if she was physically attractive to him.
So I go back to my statement before:
quote:
What it comes down to is renewing your mind daily and REFUSING to allow your thoughts to drift down the road to the "No-Tell Motel".
_____________________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it's gone
and gone for a long, long time."
Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/9/2008 7:26:53 PM
|
|
|
JamesL5
Posts: 97
Joined: 8/26/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Memaw
It seems to me that if a man looks at a woman other than his wife it is automatically assumed he is lusting after her.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think anyone on this thread has made the assertion that just looking at a woman is a sin, this is not what the bible teaches. With that said, the bible does teach us that looking at a woman with lust is indeed a sin. There is a big difference. I stand by what I said earlier, lusting after a woman includes BOTH the eyes and the heart.
< Message edited by JamesL5 -- 10/9/2008 11:48:48 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/9/2008 10:36:37 PM
|
|
|
CoeurdeLeon
Posts: 9497
Joined: 9/4/2005
From: Inside my head
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
Case in point. There are women posting here that have at one time or another had their picture either as an avatar or in their profile. Right off the top of my head Kath, Coeurdelion and Phosy come to mind. I think all three of these ladies are pretty. Do I find them attractive? Only a blind man(or woman) would say no. Do I want to jump in bed with either of the three. The answer here is no. That thought has never entered my mind. If a man can't look upon the natural beauty of a woman with having immoral thoughts that man has issues far greater than can be resolved on these forums.
To Kath, Coeurdelion and Phosy I apologize for singling you out.
No apology necessary, Qtman. Speaking for myself, I sincerely appreciate the compliment. I also know that there is nothing whatever that could be construed as inappropriate in that compliment. You are one of the most devoted husbands I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. And I know that no matter what you think of anyone else's looks, it doesn't hold a candle to what you think of your lovely wife. A true man who knows himself as you do need not fear seeing beauty in others.
_____________________________
This morning I was awakened by the sound of purple
colliding with the fragrance of laughter.
Eutychus
10.13.08
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/9/2008 11:46:19 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 10522
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
Well, I don't know since I haven't been a girl for, oh, 20 years...
_____________________________
~Kristin~
Resume Quotations: "Reason for leaving last job: The owner gave new meaning to the word 'paranoia.' I prefer to elaborate privately."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/10/2008 2:24:14 AM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 361
Joined: 10/5/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
Well, I don't know since I haven't been a girl for, oh, 20 years...
I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend. I was just teasing. Be blessed...
_____________________________
I lift my eyes unto the hills
Where does my help come from?
My help comes from the Lord
The Maker of Heaven and earth!
Casting Crowns
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/10/2008 7:34:27 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 10081
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
Hislittleone, I have not read any of Stoekers books. The one you were talking about earlier appears to have been co-written with his wife and is about the woman's side and deals with the healing process after the husband has been involved in sexual sin.
I did go to his web-site and read what was there and it appears he is writting about his own experiences. He has admitted to looking at porn and various other things. Yes those are wrong and will trigger lustful feelings. But I did not see anything about scientific evidence that his theory of the "pop" would pertain to all men or even most men. I do not look at porn and My eyes do not focus and settle on a womans back sided when I see her. Please do not take what he said about his own experiences and like him try to apply it to all men.
This is much like a thread from a while back about all men being angry. It just don't hold up.
_____________________________
Remember: God loves you and I'm trying!
~rogasinger4Him
Body Piercings
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/10/2008 8:46:54 AM
|
|
|
Tinkerbell_
Posts: 7616
Joined: 1/25/2008
From: NeverNeverLand
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hislittleone
It seems I might have been wrong in thinking that men can't view an attractive woman and briefly think she's attractive without having a "pop" or lusting. Perhaps I was going to the extreme a bit. But I do think it's best to be very careful in in this area of our lives.
No on is saying we shouldn't be careful...everyone knows his or her own weakness. But to generalise and say that EVERYONE noticing beauty in a person is lusting is a bit extreme as you said.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/10/2008 11:34:18 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2829
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JamesL5
JimboFletch,
I have to disagree with you. Lusting after women includes BOTH the eyes and the heart. Please read this verse again.
"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28).
Just to prove my point again......
"I have made a covenant with my eyes; How then could I gaze at a virgin?" (Job 31:1)
The word gaze in Hebrew is "hesh" which literally means "to stare." Job would of never said this if he thought it was OK to be staring at women with the wrong intention.
Actually the Hebrew word is 'etbonen' and comes from the Hebrew root 'bin'; The word means to discern, perceive, observe, pay attention, etc... In this case it is used in the hitpael (reflexive) construction. Because of the reflexive, a literal reading would be "I perceive myself on a virgin." In other words the text conveys quite strongly that it is an issue of the heart, and not simply looking at a woman.
I also have to disagree with your conclusion that is an issue of BOTH they eyes and the heart. The eyes were simply the vehicle used by the person choosing to sin, but a blind man can still lust (without the eyes). It would kind of be like saying that stealing was an issue of BOTH the hand and the heart. The eyes and the hands are vehicles by which a person may choose to sin, but the issue that concerns God is the heart.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/10/2008 11:58:18 AM
|
|
|
JamesL5
Posts: 97
Joined: 8/26/2007
Status: offline
|
benelchi,
I would have to kindly disagree with your literal reading. Please take a close look at both the NASB & ERV Bibles.
"I have made a covenant with my eyes; How then could I gaze at a virgin? (Job 31:1) NASB
"I made a covenant with mine eyes; how then should I look upon a maid?" (Job 31:1) ERV
As you can see, two of the most literal (word for word) bible translations both point to sight (eyes).
Furthermore, as you know, the word covenant is a strong word in the Hebrew tradition. It doesn't make sense for Job to make a covenant with his own eyes if he didn't think the eyes could cause him to sin.
< Message edited by JamesL5 -- 10/10/2008 3:33:28 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/10/2008 12:24:12 PM
|
|
|
JamesL5
Posts: 97
Joined: 8/26/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch,
James, you are still so intently focused on a tree that you continue to miss the forest, so to speak.
Actually, if you go back and read my posts, I have acknowledged both the tree and the forest.
They both play an important role although I have to confess that the forest is of greater significance.......
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/10/2008 12:30:04 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6631
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
The eyes can cause no evil thoughts to a pure heart. They are as neutral as the lens on a camera.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/10/2008 12:34:31 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2829
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JamesL5
benelchi,
I would have to kindly disagree with your so-called literal translation.
"I have made a covenant with my eyes; How then could I gaze at a virgin? (Job 31:1) New American Standard Bible
"I made a covenant with mine eyes; how then should I look upon a maid?" (Job 31:1) English Revised Version
As you can see, two of the most literal (word for word) bible translations both point to sight (eyes).
Furthermore, as you know, the word covenant is a strong word in the Hebrew tradition. It doesn't make any sense for Job to make a covenant with his own eyes if he didn't think eyes could cause him to sin.
Actually Young's makes a true literal translation, if you really want to look at a literal translation. Most every other version adjusts word order, grammar, etc... to make the verses more readable in English. And even the "literal" versions you cited, use dynamic equivalence when the translator believed it was best; these are not literal translations.
BTW - The literal translation I gave you was the one I wrote after reaching over and picking up my Hebrew bible and reading the actual Hebrew words. If you would like to check this for your self, any exhaustive concordance will confirm the root is in fact 'bin' (bet-yod-nun), any good Hebrew grammar will describe the reflexive nature of the hitpael, the identification of the construction as hitpael can be confirmed in the "luach pa'alim" (Hebrew table of verbs), and any good Hebrew lexicon will confirm the definition of the word I gave you.
A good example where all of the versions you mentioned use a dynamic equivalent translation (not a literal one) is in Ho. 1:9, all most every version translate the phrase "atem lo ami vanochi lo-eheyeh lachem" as "You are not my people, and I am not your God"; however, a literal reading is "You [are] not my people, and I [am] not "I AM" to you"; The word 'eheyeh' used here is the exact same one used in Exodus translated as 'I AM' by these same versions (this can be confirmed by using any exhaustive concordance). The point is that the so called "literal" versions, while being more literal than other versions, ARE NOT LITERAL TRANSLATIONS!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Standards of Sexual Purity - 10/10/2008 5:26:40 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1666
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Stoeker's "pop" is a physical feeling that's a result of a chemical process in the brain. He says it's not a choice it just happens. And it can be the result of not just outright porn but looking at Victoria Secret ads or Anna Kournikova strolling across the court or Michelle Kwan bent at the waist as she glides across the ice.
I've read Everyman's Battle and a couple of his other books. I don't recall the "pop" thing specifically. However, being a male, having lived a promiscuous life, having worked with sex offenders and co-facilitating their treatment, I think I understand the principle.
Yes, sexual thoughts can pop into our minds from out of nowhere. It can be a song on the radio, a billboard while driving down the highway, the scent of a candle or some woman's perfume, anything. It doesn't always have to do with the eyes or the stimulation of any other senses.
The thing is, that we still have control of those thoughts when they pop into our heads. We ahve to recognize them and learn not to play with them. We have to take those thoughts and surrender them, think of something else. If we entertain the thoughts, we delve into the fantasy world. In sex offender treatment we used the term deviant fantasy. Fantasy can be a good thing if used properly such as within the marital relationship. Deviant fantasy, however, seeks to use others for self gratification. Playing with a deviant fantasy is how one leads into setting up a situation to make fantasy become reality. I think this is the type of lust that leads us into sin.
_____________________________
“A dead thing goes with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”
G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
