Daily Mail though

Thankfully, semantics inform us that superficial readings are superficial.

Your tone suggests you are looking for a quarrel, and a chance to tell people they don't know as much as you do. It would probably be better to show this through actual displays of knowledge, and even better if done in a thread where your commentary was actually relevant.

I think this subject is too important to ruin with noise, so feel free to continue this tangent on your own.

Yes, I don't think there is any doubt this study is a fairly bad as far as method goes, and it is also performed by non-credentialed researches and not peer reviewed. Of course it is about sex and religion, makes some daring claims and is thus extremely tabloid-friendly, so it still gets air.

The subject itself is fairly fascinating though, and there is little doubt that for many, the strict codes regarding sexual behavior in mainstream religion is very problematic.

I agree with this. Since, however, "the strict codes regarding sexual behavior in mainstream religion" pertain to religious individuals, arguments that would have any chance of being heard by said individuals will have to be arguments deemed acceptable to a religious individual. This is where in this particular case social science meets theology and where non-naive reading of scripture would actually help.

Naturally, you can convince me otherwise by stating what non-religious arguments you'd make to a "members of major Christian sects", as the article puts it, and hope to get through with.

Apart from this, the article states, basically, that long-held convictions influence our emotional well-being long past the point where we've moved past them intellectually. That's not really all that new or interesting. And the way to get past that in the case of sexual morals is not any different from getting past, say, racism or changing political views or whatever other long-held conviction you may become alienated from.

The specific thought crime of adultery in your heart is at least relevant to this topic, and it's quite well known. I'd be interested to hear how it means something other than what it says.

Do you accept a difference between "lust" and "arousal"?

I'm in Fret's camp right now in terms of tame_deuces not really understanding the meaning of the teaching and that this way of reading it really feels superficial for rather basic reasons.

I didn't mention "arousal" (neither does the text, ofc, but I suspect tame_deuces could make a pretty decent point connecting lust with arousal).

What I'm interested in is hearing how it means something other than what it says. Is it not saying "if you have a lustful thought, it's the same as if you'd physically performed adultery"?

The existence of such a connection (lustful thoughts cause arousal) isn't the same as what is being stated in the text. By tame_deuce's reading, one cannot even be aroused by his own wife without committing adultery. That just seems like a ludicrous interpretation of the text.

Your reading is clearly not saying the same thing as tame_deuces claimed it said and would be a significant improvement of the understanding of the text.

Edit: To clarify, the text says what it says. But what it says isn't what tame_deuces claimed it says. That was really my only point. Fret was expressing his disagreement with tame_deuces' reading.

Jesus isn't unnecessarily specific, such as "anyone who looks at a woman [who is not their wife] lustfully" but we still know what he means, sorry He means. I think we can extend the same courtesy to tame_deuces (even if he is merely a mortal) that he too is talking about extra-marital relations if the term adultery is used.

I'll just wait to see if Fret meant something in particular when he said "semantics inform us that superficial readings are superficial."

I get the feeling Aaron hasn't had very much sex.

Marrying a divorced woman is apparently adultery so I'd imagine there's some guilt there if you've gone down that route.

Which merely brings us back to the question of whether "being aroused" and "lust" are the same thing. I think if we extend both sides a reasonable interpretation, tame_deuces still has a lot of ground to cover in his meaning in order to bridge the gap.

So is being aroused by looking at another woman not a sin? Seems like it would take quite some analysis to even determine if the original connotations of the word correspond to present da connotations of lust but not present day connotations of arroused. Not that it really matters what the original connotations are for our purposes here, merely that people's sexual actions and desires cause them guilt, even if that is because of a misinterpretation. Which is pretty sad and rather unnecessary, but such is life. It is just one more reason why we should jettison this anachronistic nonsense.

You should consider turning the page on your word of the day calendar.

No it doesn't. It just requires that you get off your lazy ass and consult a book.

Translating that word by word: I / however; though / say / (to) you / that / every;everyone / who / (is) looking [blepwn = participle; literal rendering would be something like "is being looking"] / (at) a woman / towards; to; with regards to; concerning / the desiring / her ...

epithymeo doesn't automatically have sexual connotations; the same word is used, for example in Act 20:33; Gal 5:17; 1 Ti 3:1; Hb 6:11; Rv 9:6. In 1Tim 3, it is used for desiring the post of overseer.
With that in mind and taking the immediate context of the verse into account, we get something

The relevant point is not sexual arousal but simply desiring a married woman for himself. That, indeed is "mental" adultery, regardless of whether sex is even involved or not.

Now, apart from this particular verse, as you know Mt 5 is the sermon on the mount. The relevant verse to interpret our section is vv19f:

In this verse, he's proposing a radicalized ethic compared to the one of the pharisees and scribes. He exemplifies that in the following, by taking some of the 10 comandments and radicalizing them. For example:

The point here appears to be that not only actions are liable to moral judgement but wishes and inclinations as well.

Taking the entire sermon, we get a radicalization of
- commandment vs. killing (vv21ff)
- adultery (vv27ff)
- divorce (vv31ff)
- swearing oaths (vv33ff)
- retribution (vv 38ff)
- comandment of loving thy enemies (vv43ff)
- comandment of giving alms (6,1ff)
- praying
- fasting
- and so on and so forth

So, tame_deuces is in particular wrong to cite Mt 5,28 as evidence for the NT being "actually particularly harsh on sexual matters":

• Neither adultery nor divorce are primarily sexual matters - they're legal matters. Incidentally, radicalizing those commandments, in their time, would have the effect of extending legal protection of women.
• Adultery isn't in any way treated specially here or emphasized. Adultery is discussed in 3 verses, divorce in two. How to give alms is discussed in 4 verses, oaths in 4 retribution in 4, loving enemies in 5, killing in 5. Adultery is by no means something he's particularly interested in, and the sexual dimension of it doesn't even register.
• The point of Mt 5,28 is not the arousal or the sexual lusting but adultery. "Lusting" after a woman, when prefaced with "Don't commit adultery" means "lusting after a married woman".
• Finally, he is neglecting that Jesus often talkes in parables, hyperbole and in general tries to "shake his listeners up" out of their normal way of thinking. In vv29ff of the sermon of the mount, he's suggesting cutting your eye out if it's luring you into evil and cutting your hand off. That should be tough to exact irl, so it stands to reason that the focal point of this entire section is vv19f, not the exemplifications that come afterwards, and that at least some of it is "rhetoric hyperbole".

That should be enough as a pointer?

No social researcher (me included) is interested in a historical hermeneustic understanding of biblical verses when we want to find out how Christianity impacts people, we are interested in how people perceive Christianity - because that is how it impacts people.

The Christian movements that arose in the 1700s with very strong views regarding sexual matters (esp in the North-American colonies) are factual, their impact to this day both traceable and genuine. Matthew 5:27-30 is a staple in their diet.

You can claim that "lust" means something else and fret can lord over us with the greek alphabet and tell us how dumb people are for reading the bible in English - but this isn't very important here, those are normative claims for how people should be Christians, while the interesting question (to me) is in how they actually are Christians. I'll assume you and fret's views aren't uncommon, but we all know they are not the only view out there.

I'm sure many Christians have happy guiltfree sexual desires, but I'm also fairly certain many don't. If you and fret think this is down to a misreading of the bible, it is them you have to tell.

fwiw, if there's any criticism at all, then it's that you're not reading the bible. In addition, further above you specifically adressed the NT being particuarily strict regarding sexual matters. Conflating that with sexually restrictive interpretations of the NT during christian history (which undoubtedly existed and were even teh mainstream for much of christian history) is either careless or misleading.

Isn't forbidden sex supposed to be the most pleasurable?

This is fine. But this is also not what you said.

First of all, I admitted originally that my reading was superficial... which indeed it was. So I had hoped we were beyond that, but ok... since we are not, I did some research and both you and Fret have cleverly "forgotten" certain key factors.

Fret "forgot" too mention that the original greek word can indeed mean sexual desire and that this meaning of the word in Matthew 5 is far from an uncommon interpretation.

You are both sidestepping what adultery actually is; sexual intercourse with someone you are not married too. And before any protests that this is not what is meant in the bible, this understanding of the word IS the original one from the Abrahamic religions. Thus the context is more than supportive for what I originally stated, yet none of you have even offered the slightest chance that this could actually be so. "Sexual intercourse (with someone you are not married to) in your heart" sure seems fairly straigtforward.

To be honest, I find that to be rather insulting. If you are going to claim others are wrong, but you know what they are saying is atleast equally plausible as what you are stating yourself...

... well, enough said.

As amused as I am that you actually started translating greek for me, I don't think you have demonstrated what you want to demonstrate. Who cares what the literally translation is? Who cares whether the word has non sexual connotations in non sexual contexts? The question is whether it has a sexual connotation in this question of lusting at women. I somewhat doubt that we are talking about the same type of desire as desiring the post of overseer.

Although again, as tame deuces and myself both pointed out, none of this hardly matters for the topic at hand, only how Christians commonly perceive such passages. If telling Christians that they are understanding their own religion incorrectly frees them from the rather unfortunate guilt they seem to commonly feel that reduces the quality of their sex lives, then excellent!

LOL -- Once again, uke is demonstrating his deep grasp of theology and language in general. How would you propose one comes to an understanding of a word in a foreign language?

Maybe you should keep on reading beyond where you cut off the quote.

You seem confused about a pretty basic point. A word can have a literal meaning, a denotation, and possibly several different connotations. Our question is to know the connotation being used in a specific context. Saying that it has a nonsexual denotation, or various nonsexual connotations, does not imply that it doesn't have a sexual connotation as well. Not that I have any idea what the connotations of these ancient greek words are or are not, but freteloo making a comment that it has a nonsexual connotation in the context of desiring a job simply does not demonstrate it has a nonsexual connotation here. Note that this point has nothing to do with theology, I don't know why you think it would.

Let me open with pointing out that every time I've called you out, I've done so in the interest of getting you to do some research. Once you've done that and showed your work, I've generally been fairly happy to agree with your (educated) conclusions. So, taking that one at a time:


Wrong.

In Mt 5 there are obv. sexual connotations, in Gal 5,17 as well. Thus, I never denied that "the original greek can indeed mean sexual desire" - I supplied the verses in which it did. However, in 1 Tim 3, Heb 6,11 and Rev 9,6 it simply means "desiring". The sexual connotations of "lusting after" are derived from the context, not the word itself.

Wrong.

a) I'd like a reference (just so you get into the habit)
b) I'm not disputing that the 'material offence' that is usually referred to with the term adultery is ****ing a woman.
c) You omit, however, the crucial point, i.e. that adultery is sex between a man (or woman) who are MARRIED (or fiancé): ""You shall not commit adultery" is one of the Ten Commandments. Adultery is sexual relations in which at least one participant is married to someone else."
c.1) This can be gleaned from the fact that the verb used for "adultery" in the OT (Lev 20,10), na'al is not used in cases, where an unmarried girl has sex before marriage (i.e. Dtn 22,23f). Those are usually rendered with the expression "lie with someone".
c.2) The context of Mt 5 makes it quite clear that Jesus' point is an intensification of the rabbinic law, the specific commandment being quoted in teh verse before.
c.3) The obvious point behind that is that a woman (loosely speaking) becomes the property of the an, screwing a married woman is tantamount to stealing from the man.
d) This becomes even more relevant, as sexual relations within marriage were expected, and encouraged, in prevalent rabbinical law. So if the Mt 5-passage was to impose strict sexual limits on sexuality as such, it would have to make that clear by other means that turning the screw on what constitutes adultery.

I am still waiting on the secular/philosophical arguments you would level against the ex-christian sectist to convince him that his feelings of guilt are misguided. We both agree that they are, but you seem to be under the impression that just dishing out a bible verse with some half-arsed explanation will make his feelings of guilt go away. I disagree. And, curiously, I've noted down elsewhere some of the approaches I expect to be much more likely to succeed.