Pretty much that.

You attempted to construct an argument of the form "Well, it doesn't necessiarily mean that" by raising the spectre of the possibility of some game-changing special sexual connotation.

I noted that the word DEnoted the same thing in both cases, as that would be the most reasonable way to reject the particular reading of the passage you were suggesting was possible. But you rejected that, leaving you in this strange world of sexual CONnotation that somehow implies that using other uses of the word in non-sexual contexts would somehow be insufficient for understanding the word in sexual contexts.

It's all just a strange way to try to deal with language.

Right. I have no disagreement with you on this. I thought you were maintaining an argument that it appears you were not. I correctly pointed out that this argument is flawed. You agree that if you had made it, it would be flawed. Aaron, however, in a desperate need to point out everything I say is wrong, jumped in and tried to find some way, any way, to claim that my point about the flaw in said argument was wrong. As such it is an entirely moot point predicated on the amusement I get at destroying Aaron's attempts to poke holes.

That said, I maintain that your attempts to characterize that statement have been ALL over the map (one reason why at first I thought that you were trying to argue it didn't have sexual connotations). The most egregious is this: "attempting/intending to break someone elses marriage" which is a very strong requirement and excludes all the fantasizing about sex but NOT intending to break someone else's marriage.
As I say, I maintain that physical arousal and mentally thinking about sex are VERY closely linked. Sure, you can maintain there is a difference. But they come hand in hand. Heck, I think we often say we are aroused not just based on the "unintentional" or "physical" nature, but also because we are mentally wanting sex or thinking about sex. And delineating these differences usually just doesn't happen because of the obvious relations. Nonetheless, there is plenty of space between merely fantasizing about sex and attempting to break peoples marriage.

And...that is all we need to establish td's original point. Namely, that a prohibition against fantasizing about having sex (in the case when one of the two is married) is a ridiculous broad sweep against the most minor of sexual activities. That christian sexual ethics have such edicts against such quintessentially human characteristics is just one more reason on the long list of reasons of why the whole pile of nonsense ought to be tossed out the window.

Obviously it is possible to distinguish between institutions and beliefs. My question is about what connection you think these two categories have to identifying someone as a Christian. For example, on your view is it a necessary condition for someone being a Christian that they have Christian beliefs?

Yeah, I do. I mean, there might be recursive limits to what is possible to believe while still being a Christian, but since I don't identify Christian beliefs based on content the variety would seem endless.

Freteloo claims there are obvious sexual connotations. Do you think he is correct? Because that was precisely the possibility I was raising, back when I thought he was saying there were not sexual connotations.

This would be a basic exercise that one should use in any attempt to learn the meaning of ancient words. If you learn one connotation in one context, you do not assume it necessarily has the same connotation in all other contexts. In time you may discover that certain words have several different connotations. You seem to have spun this elementary point into some wild "game changing spectre". Heck, when you manage to avoid strawmen, most of what you say about my point is just to restate it but add lots of negative qualifiers like "spectre" to make it seem bad.

Most of the married Christian women I meet claim their husbands aren't getting the job done.

Many Christians have outdated beliefs and values and generally they stigmatize sex as something dirty or potentially sinful. Many Christians grow up with stigma or guilt attached to sexual expression which makes them less likely to be sexually expressive and enjoy the thrill of good sex.

Christians also put soo much emphasis on monogamy that it restricts sexual experimentation and experiences soo many people get stuck with sexually non expressive partners and don't realize they are missing out on the joys of good sex, because they are stuck with the same clod forever and have no experiences to reference for comparison.

In which case you're still carefully missing the point I am trying to make.

Having gone full circle for five times or so now, and seeing that others are apparently able to characterize the difference I'm aiming at at first try:

... I conclude that your continuing failure to appreciate the distinction I'm drawing is not primarily due to lack of clarity on my part.

Edit to add: Incidentally, the greek term that is used to denote all *other* kinds of inappropriate sexual contact/conduct is porneia, which is used to denote "unchastity, prostitution, fornication, of various kinds of unlawful sexual intercourse" (Gingrich Greek Lexicon). That term is not used in the verse in question, further lending support to the theory that the envisioned sexual "activity" referred to by the verb in v28 isn't just any random sexual thought towards a woman but a specific kind. For had the author intended to broadly intensify the restrictions on "all things sexual" in a wide-sweeping manner, he could have simply used porneia in the opening statement of the chastized action and then intensified that by referring to the corresponding mental activity of thinking about said action. He, however, did not.

I'm saying that the sexual connotations that exist do not change the meaning of the words being used in some way that affects the understanding of the word.

Let's go back to the original statement I responded to (Post #47):

My response (Post #48):

Your statement was a rejection of the methods used to derive an understanding because it went through this process of looking at the literal meaning of the word and its usages in other contexts. This is a criticism of your methods, and not your conclusion.

You reject the idea that "desire" for a woman is the same as "desire" of a post. You're challenging the meaning of the word, and saying that the sexual context implies something stronger ("lust").

I've nowhere challenged the existence of a sexual connotation. I've challenged that the sexual connotation gains you any change of meaning. That is, "desire" and "lust" represent two distinct concepts, and the jump from one concept to the other is unwarranted.

I'll also note that this statement you've made is much stronger than what you've claimed it to be in later posts. You've claimed that you've only brought up the possibility that the word could have a sexual connotation. We'll use my statement in post #72 (which you accepted as an accurate rendition of your position) as the one we will work from:

Notice how you've shifted your view. You're no longer trying to assert that it means something stronger, you're just saying that it *could* mean something stronger.

But then you changed again to talk about existence of sexual connotation:

Sure. It has sexual connotations. But whether those "obvious sexual connotations" equate to "lust" has been unproven. (Notice that here you've also abandoned your #72 position. You're going beyond possibility again into an affirmative statement of the existence of a particular rendering of the word.)

So where does that leave us? Right back to where we were at the beginning.

On what basis do you find that "desire" should be rendered as "lust"? It's not enough to say "It has a sexual connotation" and change the meaning of "desire" to "lust." That's simply not how language works.

Edit: I'll also note that "lust" and "sexual arousal" are not the same, either. I pulled the word "lust" from tame_deuces' passage and "sexual arousal" from his post. Either one can be used throughout what I've said above, and it will not change the underlying position.

uke_master and Aaron W. have as a collective goal in their posting here the attempt to disprove Grice's conversational maxims. It has little to do with you.

All this sex talk has me hot and bothered. Any chicas want to create a religious sexually based fantasy, like Madonna's Like A Prayer video, but more risqué and X rated?

Freteloo, reskimming the thread, while there were related answers, I don't think this question got a clear answer from you: Is ONLY fantasizing about another woman (while married) a sin? As in one may have no "intention" of having sex with them, make no "attempts" to have sex with them. Even in your most recent post, you are repeatedly emphasizing that is an intention or attempt to commit adultry.

I say this because at times you seem to be harping on the physical arousal vs mental thought distinction. And then at other times you seem to be harping on the fantasizing vs intending to commit adultry distinction. These are very separate.

Let's reset the strawman counter, shall we? Great. I wouldn't suggest to the contrary. I don't think what desire denotes magically transforms into some new mystical "spectre", just that it has somewhat different connotations. Strawman 1.


Obviously I am not rejecting ever looking at other meanings, I was merely making the point that a connotation in one context doesn't imply the same connotation in a second context. In no way was it meant, or could be reasonably interpreted, as a rejection of ever looking at different contexts to learn connotations. Strawman 2.


No, I was not making a claim about the meaning of this ancient greek word (and explicitly said I have no idea what the uses were) and in particular wouldn't know if it has meanings of lust. This was repeatedly made clear. Strawman 3.

i was not trying to demonstrate a jump from desire to lust. As you just said this, I won't call it a new strawman, just a repetition of the previous strawman.

As seen, I never said it necessarily means something strong, always only that it could. Hence no shift. Strawman 4.


Nope, I was just noting that freteloo was stating there were obvious sexual connotations. Not knowing the ancient greek, I make no comment on the matter. Strawman 5.


Of course I didn't do this. It is kind of already repeated, but i like big numbers so I will call this Strawman 6.

I wouldn't suggest they are identical either. Strawman 7.

I think we had 8 before, so that is 15 strawmen. Okay I probably overcounted repetitions. But as you see, you are effectively just making up stuff to try and score points. Burn em, burn em all down! Perhaps one of these days your insatiable need to autocriticize my posts will involve a criticism of a position I actually hold, and not your twisted misinterpretation of it.

Incidentally, since in this most recent post you randomly made up the assertions that I am proving something about lust, here is the only time I mentioned the word:

Clearly I am not trying to prove something about what the word means in its original context.

I was only commenting on the meaning of a verse. Therefore, the only question I might be able to answer is whether the text says it is.

But assuming you were meaning to ask that, I would think the clear distinctions get very fuzzy here. One can plausibly intend/phantasize/think/want to commit adultery without feeling aroused (target is ugly but rich). One can be sexually aroused by someone without having any interest in actually committing adultery (target is pretty but butt-stupid). There are myriads of way in which to feel attracted to someone that would fall somewhere in between.

Overall, the text is arguing that in judging someone, the line is not to be drawn between "adultery de facto committed or not", but earlier: somewhere on the continuum between "no interest at all" and "phantasy/intention/wish that is about to turn into action".

Where the text actually does draw that line - well, this is where the King James-Version revisits: Their suggestion (as per their translation of "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her") is basically: "whenever a looking turns into a lusting after". I might interpret the text a bit more lenient and (by translating with a more neutral "desire") try to emphasize more the overall point of the section, which is the shift of focus from action to intention when it comes to judging a person.

Given additional considerations, such as Q being fairly strict in matters of ethics**, the general observation that an expectation of imminent eschaton argues for stricter ethical codes than the expectation of continuing existence, potential influences of essenic asketism, etc. etc., I'd suspect a stricter interpretation is more in sync with what the author originally had in mind, but as I'm no NT scholar, this is just shooting from the hip.


**while one would have to check whether Mt 5 is dependent on/influenced by Q or not

Every feeling one has is has a distinct thought filled activity with the same. It can't be escaped but there is the question of "entertaining" an untoward thought and in this the individual man works within reason to assuage or not bring this thought into activity. Some are brought forth into a will laden activity and some not.

If we assume that we "manufacture" or "create our thoughts" then it sticks and this is the pathos of present man irrespective of a particular world viewpoint.

The historical basis for our "look" at sex or sensuality can be seen in the mystery centers in which the apprentice practiced great restraint in all matters of sensuality including the use of our senses. This was in preparation for entering into the "Kingdom of God" as per Paul, who was a Hebrew Initiate who received the "Kingdom of God" in the christian sense through a "gift" or "grace".

Sensual restraint was primary in these matters and of course this included sex. To love food as a bon vivant would have crippled the apprentice in his journey to this state of being. Quite often the spirit of asceticism was the methodology in these matters.

Carrying forward ,the idea of celibacy entered the Christian Church and we have priests and nuns taking vows not only of sex but "fruits of the earth", so to speak. This wasn't just to commit Christians to a sinful haven but as a particular instance and aid to reaching the "Kingdom of God". This particular celibate methodology wasn't only specific to the Christian Church but was well followed in the ancient mystery centers of other peoples including the forerunners of our present day religions. An example was the Hebrew sect of Essenes which can be considered a forerunner of the same and in particular the Gospel of Matthew speaks to this. (another story)

Its a mistake to think that mankind of 2000, 3000, 4000 years ago was like our present man for there were still vestiges of an atavistic clairvoyance even up to the 16th century which is lost in our present time. they could "see" the necessary matters to which the individual man could progress and brought this to their fellow man.

Of course the Christian Church and in particular the Roman Catholic Church has continued with this and followed to a lesser or greater extent, the Protestants too, not to leave anyone out. The thinking of the day speaks to sense bound activities and this brings forth materialism, perforce secondary to the loss of this primitive atavistic activity.

In the Grecian times the individual man did not see himself as producing thoughts, but more as experiencing thoughts and so the laying on one's self a "sin" of"sex" would be out of the question. They simply would not have understood this but they would have known the field of sexual activity as an encumbrance to the human development, specifically the mystery centers. Of course it should be noted that there were even during those time some who began to see "thoughts" as created by the self and I guess you could call them "advanced beings".


Cliff notes: In times past, prior to Christ Jesus, the mystery centers called for "restraint" in matters of the senses and this continued into our times but to a significant extent the comprehension what exactly it all means has turned into a "sin"(not always) for sex as it entered into the commonality of men. Now the Old testament "Judgment" reared its head and there was or is no small amount of "guilt" due to lack of comprehension of the 'reason' involved.

Of course a life of sensuality is debilitating in its own right and you don't have to be a Christian or follow any of the other major religions to comprehend this. For what's its worth mankind will progress until there will be no sexes , nor birth and death, as we know it. The real interpretation (Freteloo here) is he made them male-female, not male and female, which followed. I believe the Greeks had the picture of "Zeus Hermaphrodite" in which he is presented with female breasts, and so on.. Every time i attempt to search for it, (I've seen it before) I'm guided to sexual sites of present day sensuality.

As an important aside, the having of an "untoward thought", will be a impediment to the further progression of the human being. To assume that only if one acts does one"do wrong" if fatuous. I'm at the point where I see it as "entertaining" a thought such as hate, envy, adulterous thinking is as real as plowing a field. This is hard, I know, if one considered that one does not create thoughts but they can overcome him in the sense of hate, envy, to which a thought is contained...

Okay. I submit that this upper bound you have expressed is rather unclear. That is, I feel that there is a very large difference between fantasizing or wishing about having sex, and intending to have sex and that they dont deserve to be treated synonomously. Indeed, many people likely fantasize about sex with others frequently but intend to commit it orders of magnitude less often. So if you take a "lenient" view of the passage that it is only a restriction of INTENTION then this is "good" in the sense that it is far less restrictive which I think is good. However, many Christians are interpreting it, I think it is safe to say, as a stronger restriction namely against sexual thoughts themselves (where one is married), separate from an intention to act on them. Which is sufficient to make the kind of claims about repressive Christian sexual ethics discussed earlier.

Surely you realized that I was trying to illustrate a continuum ranging from "no interest at all" on the one side to "JUST NOT actually committing adultery" on the other side. Whether you (or I) rank phantasy before intention on that continuum, or wishing after trying, is completely besides the point. What counts is that if we argued long enough, we would get all of these different notions into an order of ascending "severity". Regarding that so-defined continuum, the text draws a line somewhere. That's all I was saying.

Mark, chapter 7, Verses 13-23. "Out of the hearts of men"

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../mark-kjv.html

"Clearly."

It sure seems to me as this statement you've made centers the question around lust. So even if you've "only" used it in that one post if you ignore the other post, you've made it a central feature of your position.

What position? What statement? I simply made no claims about the meanings of ancient greek words. I posed the question of whether there was a sexual connotation of lust, but did not attempt to answer it. Indeed, I said it would take considerable analysis to answer it. I know you desperately want me to have taken a position one this issue, but I simply didn't. Outside, that is, of correcting a basic flaw in an argument I thought freteloo was making, one that he agrees would be ludicrous. Strawman 16. But keep trying.

Ah, so you are effectively saying nothing at all. Previously, when you gave the characterization "attempting/intending to break someone elses marriage", I presumed this was your attempt to characterize what is being prohibited, but in reality this is just one point on a big spectrum and you are now claiming you are offering no further claims outside of "the passage prohibits something".

Given the enormous difference between fantasizing about sex, and intending or attempting to have sex, this presents an enormous problem for any follower if they can't tell which of these are or are not allowed. Incidentally, given how after all your analysis your position is effectively no position I think I can reclaim our very first disagreement: that this would take considerable analysis to figure out exactly what was intended. Further, since arousal is certainly more than "no interest at all" and thus an allowable point on your "continuum", I think we can say that you have not demosntrated that tame deuces original characterization is wrong.

Ya, that is more or less what I felt when I saw you try to pass off your remarks in this thread as this:

The text says something, I'm not saying anything else, but I know it must say something!

this is the worst thread about sex ever

although Worf is pretty hot

I keep hoping someone will have made some sort of "good sects-life" joke and am continually disappointed.

Christian sects consists of at least 40k slightly different positions

ba-dum-dum-tshhhh