(Yesterday morning. I’m in our car with my wife Cat as I drive her to work.)
Me: Hey, so I posted a blog considering the idea of Jesus being fully man, but not having a sex drive. [That blog's here.]
Cat: Oh?
Me: Yeah. You know: How can Jesus be fully man without a sex drive? And if he has a sex drive, then how can he be sinless, since Matthew 5:27-28, says, “Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” What man doesn’t look at women lustfully?”
Cat [looking out her side window at some construction going on]: Oh.
Me: What?
Cat: What?
Me: Don’t you think that’s interesting? That Jesus has to be sinless, yet, by his own definition, cannot be, since being fully man means he must regularly commit adultery? If Jesus was fully man, then must have lusted. And if he lusted, he wasn’t sinless. [In slightly manic tone.] That’s kind of interesting, don’t you think?
Cat: Not really.
Me: What? Of course it’s interesting. It’s core to the whole conception of Jesus being fully man!
Cat: Look. You don’t lust after your sister, right?
Me: Ew. No.
Cat: And you don’t lust after your mom. Because your mom and your sister aren’t potential mates for you. That’s how Jesus saw all women. There are no potential mates for Jesus. Just like no sane father can lust after his daughter, Jesus couldn’t lust after any woman. To Jesus, every woman is his daughter. Literally.
Me: So there’s no psychological mechanism for his lust to kick in.
Cat: Right. It would be cruel of Jesus to have sexual relations with a woman. He’s knows he’s not gonna marry her.
Me: Right.
Cat: And that’s how Jesus can be fully man and fully God.
Me: Oh. [Long pause.] I was going to say that, you know. [Cat silently resumes gazing out window.] I was. Really. I was. I would have thought of that.
Cat [pensively, still looking out window]: I wonder if I should start my own blog?
Me: No! You shouldn’t!
Posted by Skerrib on November 1, 2007 at 8:28 am
Yes she should.
Posted by John Shore on November 1, 2007 at 8:38 am
No. She. Shouldn’t.
Posted by John Shore on November 1, 2007 at 8:40 am
Now my wife is back in the bedroom getting dressed for work, saying loudly, “Fan mail! This is great! I’m famous! Whoo-hoo!”
Okay, this has GOT to stop.
Posted by Greta Sheppard on November 1, 2007 at 8:48 am
Ditto!
Greta
Posted by Greta Sheppard on November 1, 2007 at 8:50 am
gol-darn-it!
I meant ditto to Skerrib!
Greta
Posted by Skerrib on November 1, 2007 at 8:52 am
Whoops, sorry, I didn’t hit the Crosswalk blog before this one. I hereby officially rescind my encouragement.
(but not really)
Posted by John Shore on November 1, 2007 at 9:06 am
Okay, stop it. Just stop it right now.
Posted by Martin Zimmann on November 1, 2007 at 9:13 am
Cat, if it wasn’t for you, John would obviously be slated for eternal damnation.
Posted by John Shore on November 1, 2007 at 9:25 am
Et tu, Martin? Et, tu?
Posted by John Shore on November 1, 2007 at 9:39 am
No, she did NOT!
Okay, everyone. Laugh it up. It’ll be hilarious right up until I DISABLE COMMENTS.
Posted by ric booth on November 1, 2007 at 9:41 am
Wow, another GREAT script!
Did Cat play the part of God in the inspiration for Mankind?
Posted by John Shore on November 1, 2007 at 9:42 am
Hi, everyone. This is John’s wife, Cat. Please stop encouraging me to start my own blog. I’m not NEARLY as smart as John, who is a brilliant writer and dazzling intellect. The very idea of me writing a blog, which I know no one would ever read, is abzzzurd. See? I can’t even spell in a goodly fashun. SO STOP ENCOURAGING ME TO START MY OWN BLOG!!
Yours truly,
John’s wife Cat
Posted by John Shore on November 1, 2007 at 9:45 am
p.s. the only reason the above looks like John wrote it is because I borrowed his computer to right it. Because i didn’t go to work today. I have the flu. and a sore throat. i can’t talk. Or type, now that I thunk abbbout it.
Posted by Oscar Varghese on November 1, 2007 at 9:53 am
Wow. Really, your trying that hard? I think you should.
Posted by Craig on November 1, 2007 at 10:09 am
What an obvious answer that i am supprised to see that none of us males thought of, herm maybe they are smarter. I must think about this.
Posted by John Shore on November 1, 2007 at 10:15 am
The question is not whether or not women are smarter than men. I think we all know the answer to that. The question is, what are we going to DO about it?? I, for one, think we should begin by not letting women blog. I think that’s where a lot of trouble is beginning these days.
Posted by Debra on November 1, 2007 at 12:06 pm
What a nice partnership, the three of you, in getting this point across. (You, Cat and the H.S.) Woo-hoo, indeed!
Posted by Greta Sheppard on November 1, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Not let women blog?
Sounds like male chauvanism . . .
What are you guys afraid of?
Girls think with both sides of their brain….men only use one!
Come on, Cat…show em!
greta
Posted by Jill Kerman on November 1, 2007 at 1:06 pm
LOL LOL LOL…The only thing more entertaining than your blogs, John, are the comments that people post (and that you comically reply to). I just LOVE this blog!
Posted by refreshingfromheaven on November 1, 2007 at 3:29 pm
lol, maybe Cat should start a blog indeed!
Posted by washedandforgiven on November 1, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Yes, Cat should start a blog.
Posted by John Shore on November 1, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I’ll tell her you said so.
NOT!
Posted by washedandforgiven on November 1, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Not that you’re begging for compliments, but this is a fascinating blog! I can’t believe I’ve missed this for this long!
Posted by John Shore on November 1, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Either can I! Where have you BEEN??
No, but thanks.
And I DO often beg for compliments. I mean, I try to be honorable about it. For as long as that lasts. After that, though, it usually gets pretty ugly.
Invite your friends! Since I don’t have any!
Posted by refreshingfromheaven on November 1, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Greetings brother, thanks for sharing all your experiences and posts. I’ve visited your blog (not all, obviously) and found that you’re funny/humourous indeed while you address serious Church issues. I like your fresh point of view. May God bless you abundantly!
Posted by odgie on November 1, 2007 at 10:05 pm
My wife one-ups me too sometimes. But don’t tell her I said that.
Posted by Morse on November 2, 2007 at 5:36 am
Dude, you erased my post? So uncool. I didn’t think it was offensive, but it’s your blog, so be it.
Posted by Gene Thomas on November 2, 2007 at 7:23 am
I would argue that the scripture quoted about lusting, “. . .everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart, Mt 5:28.” (NASB), means looking at a woman for the purpose of lusting, that is forming the mental images and fantasizing about a sexual encounter. Anything short of that wouldn’t seem to qualify as “with lust for her.” Anything short of that would mean that one could not admire a woman’s appearance (your sister?) without sin.
Posted by Matthew on November 2, 2007 at 7:36 am
Discovered you from Washedandforgiven. Wow, this is a real jewel, especially with an initial topic like this.
I’d love it if my (eventual) wife blogged… but yea, it could get …um… fun at times, especially since she’d likely be much more articulate in certain topics… and I tend to be very competitive in many respects.
My vote is to get her a blog.
Posted by John Shore on November 2, 2007 at 7:56 am
Refreshing: Thank you!
Odgie: No one knows but you, me, and everyone that reads these comments. And your wife. But that’s it.
Morse: Yeah, erasing your comment was a really close call. You’re a wonderful commenter, and I hope that deletion doesn’t keep you away. I deleted it because I KNOW it would have turned this nice, softly burbling, clean stream into a dark, murky, thick soup of the same ol’ “God is real” “No he isn’t” debate that I’m just exhausted with reading and hosting. What you SAID was okay–what I feel certain it would lead to wasn’t. Plus, to be honest, it WAS a tad crude. It just felt a little a tad too offensive, really. (People: His comment was very short: it said, “My only comment is…when god impregnated Mary, that must have been awkward, huh?”) To me, that’s just … too disrespectful. You gotta be careful when you’re traipsing around in places that are as important to people as their faith invariably is. You can’t be too harsh, or dismissive, or snarky. I just felt this one comment was too insensitive; I KNEW it would trigger the kind of response that would lead to the kind of response that would send this whole thread into the crapper. So I killed it. But it WAS a close call!
Gene: Sure. You can look at women like that. But what about all the times you DON’T? (Unless you’re gay. So, there we have it. Gays actually have a BETTER chance of getting into heaven! Morse: See? THAT’S the baiting kind of statement I was saying we need to avoid…)
Matthew: Ha! No. (This blog posting here is actually a continuation of a fair number of blogs, or references within blogs, about the Utter Superiority of my wife. I should probably mark all those with a tag, so people can find them…). Anyway, thanks for stopping in!!
Posted by dain bramaged on November 2, 2007 at 9:08 am
John deleting morse’s post raises some thoughts in me.
First I find it very honest that John has replied to morse and that he posted his deleted comment and that he explained why he deleted it.
What makes me thinking is why people are so easily offended when their beliefs are questioned. And I don’t mean in a harsh or rude way but in a polite one.
I have asked Christians questions like .
> What if Jesus did not die on the cross ?
> What if he really had enjoyed mrtal pleasures ?
> How do you explain that many of the attributes of Jesus are found in other mythical (or even historical) figures that we invented (or existed) prior to him ? (Orpheus, Hercules, Dionisus, Appolonius, Mithras etc.) ?
>How do you explain that key ideas of the New testament are found in neoplatonism gnosticism budhhism etc before Jesus was born ?
Now I don’t think these are offensive or rude questions but most Christians I asked WERE indeed offended.
So I don’t ask you to answer those questions I just ask if you (the believers in this blog) are offended by them and if yes why ?
Posted by Morse on November 2, 2007 at 10:34 am
John, my apologies. I just want to let you know it was meant in the most lighthearted of ways. Of course, it’s easy for an atheist like me to speak of religion lightheartedly because they don’t believe it, and so I understand.
I should have phrased it as a question for the opinion of all the posters, rather than trying to make a joke. Bad taste on my part, and I hope you don’t think less of my heathen self for it.
Posted by John Shore on November 2, 2007 at 11:25 am
dain: I certainly am not offended by ANYONE asking an honest question about my faith. I don’t think Christians generally are. Before I became a Christian (at 38), I asked Christians difficult questions about their faith all the TIME, and I rarely found anyone reacting negatively. The first book I wrote after becoming a Xtian, in fact, was one in which I ANSWERED the questions/objections that I knew non-Christians most typically have against the faith: reasonable, normal, decent questions that I felt needed REAL answer: rational, clear answers that didn’t depend on anything more than easy, rational, human logic. (That book is Penguins, Pain and the Whole Shebang–and I think it’s the best apologetic out there, if I can say that without sounding crazy, or whatever.)
To answer your questions real quick:
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross, then Xtianity is bullshit.
So what if he DID enjoy mortal pleasure? He was alive on earth. Of COURSE he did. Enjoying a glass of water is mortal pleasure?
So what if attributes of Jesus are found elsewhere. Truth and goodness are truth and goodness.
Ditto to next question.
Morse: Wonderful! Thanks. You da man. And no, of course I don’t think less of you. I think MORE of you, with this classy response.
Posted by Skerrib on November 2, 2007 at 11:40 am
Dain–I think the situation you describe is just like any number of people who cover their fear with anger/indignation to try to save face. The vulnerability of “I don’t know” is just too scary to some.
Just glancing at your questions, no, I’m not offended. If either of the first two is true then Christianity is more or less unraveled, and I have no idea on the others.
But I still love Jesus.
Posted by Skerrib on November 2, 2007 at 11:42 am
OH, I thought mrtal pleasures was “marital” pleasures. I defer to John on that one.
Posted by John Shore on November 2, 2007 at 11:45 am
So, Skerrib, from dain’s “mrtal,” I assumed “mortal,” and you assumed “marital.”
I guess it’s obvious that my mind is on higher things–while, sadly, we are left to conclude that you’re a perv.
Posted by Skerrib on November 2, 2007 at 11:47 am
Sadly, you’re not the first to arrive at that conclusion.
Posted by John Shore on November 2, 2007 at 11:55 am
I know.
Posted by dain bramaged on November 2, 2007 at 12:34 pm
John, thanks for the answers.
They are honest as it should be.
I guess the Christians to which I posed them where less open minded and much more dogmatic than you and skerrib.
I haven’ read your book but if time permits i will cause I am actually curious
how one can answer the hard questions with wich we atheists bug believers using logic.
PS: with mrtal i meant mortal pleasures meaning Sex Drugs and Rock and Roll of course
Posted by Hjordes on November 2, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Now dain b. has me wondering what kind of music da young people listened to in 5 B.C.
p.s. More blogs like this one and we’re gonna have to start a Cat Fan Club!
Posted by John Shore on November 2, 2007 at 3:18 pm
No, we WON’T have to encourage Cat to start her own blog. No. NOT. See? NOT!
What is the DEAL with you people?
Now, as to music being listened to by 5 B.C. young ‘ens. I have no idea. I do, though, have a very strong sense of what tune was particularly popular amongt Jesus’ disciples–the people who knew him best, and hung out with him everyday.
I think it was “The Rockafeller Skank,” by Fatboy Slim. (Don’t you think? “Check it out now (the funk soul brother). Right about now (the funk soul brother.)”
They were on that. I feel it.
Posted by Skerrib on November 2, 2007 at 5:07 pm
oh i LOVE that one. how appropriate.
Posted by John Shore on November 2, 2007 at 5:14 pm
We should think of others.
“I Wanna Hold Your Hand”?
OK, let’s not…
Posted by John Shore on November 2, 2007 at 5:16 pm
How ’bout, “WHOOMP! There It Is” ??!!
For SURE.
Okay, seriously. I’m stopping now.
Posted by Ann on November 4, 2007 at 4:14 am
Wise woman your wife. Thanks for sharing this I would venture to say most women and men if they have been christians a long time understand what your wife said. The only person(s) any man has buisness lusting after is his wife and vice versa. Only married people can do that. And its only ONE person forever until death do you part. Thats one of the struggles with dating and courting right and with honor. He or she doesn’t belong to you YET.
Heres a thought Your wife is also your sister in Christ. Hmm.
Posted by samanthamj on November 4, 2007 at 9:09 am
This whole post and comments were pretty funny… Started off a bit thought provoking…and took a nose-dive in to the humorous and entertaining route. I was pretty amused… up until I got to wife being your sister part thingy… ?? Even if it is in Christ… ??? Then… ya lost me again… LOL
So, that settles it, right?
Please let us know the URL to Cat’s new blog once she gets it up and running. You will list her in your blog-roll, right??
~smj
Posted by John Shore on November 4, 2007 at 9:21 am
Yeah, the “See your wife as your sister” idea is kind of … well. Obviously. But of course I know what she meant. I hope.
Uh. Yeah. As soon as Cat starts a blog, I’ll be sure to let you guys know. Really. That day.
N.
O.
T.
Posted by Skerrib on November 4, 2007 at 7:28 pm
That’s OK; we’ll find her. We have our ways…
Posted by Michele on November 5, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Cat for President!!
Posted by John Shore on November 5, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Michele for someone I don’t have to permanently block from leaving statements!
Posted by Christian on November 5, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Hmm. I ‘ve been wondering this myself lately. Commonly temptation is defined as the desire to have or do something that you know you should avoid; and lust is defined as have a craving, appetite, or great desire for something, in this case sex.
We know that Jesus was tempted in the desert. So he must have had a desire for something that he knew he should avoid, in that situation using his power to further an end other than his father’s. He did not act upon it but resisted the temptation (and it took 40 days for him to struggle with this). Was this sin? Did he sin in the desert by being tempted?
And to look at a woman with a craving, appetite, or great desire for sex with her would obviously be considered as lust. Is it possible to look at a woman and see her as being desirable yet not be so consumed? Of course it is. Is this sin? Adultery of the heart would imply the indulging one’s fantasies of illicit sex. Could Jesus have looked approving on the sexual characteristics of a woman and not desired illicit sex? I think that’s possible. For someone like him, probably not even too difficult. I think much of our own sexual impulses are more about feeding our egos rather than scratching any sexual itch.
I’d hate to think that he was some sort of spiritual eunich. Besides, what do we mean by ’sin’? The Pharisees certainly thought he was sinful, breaking all kinds of laws and taboos. If their perception of sin was so wrong perhaps ours is off base a bit as well.
Posted by John Shore on November 5, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I don’t know, man. I’m a lot more comfortable with the idea that Jesus saw ALL women (and men, of course) as his children, and thusly had for them nothing that we would recognize as sexual lust.
Although, actually, I’m not sure you’re not agreeing with that.
Well. You’re a Big Thinker, Christian. So of course I never know what you’re talking about. (No: Your gift, of course, is that you’re a big thinker AND you know how to put things in terms normal people can understand.)
Honestly–and to repeat what I/Cat said above–you only lust after those who COULD be real partners to you. There was no appropriate mortal partner for Jesus, so for him to have slept with a woman would have been cruel to her. Didn’t happen. Couldn’t happen. He had no wiring for “She’s hot. I’d do her.”
Posted by Christian on November 5, 2007 at 6:44 pm
John, you make me blush.
But, is Jesus’ way of looking at all of us as his children, is that something that happened before or after the Cross? Was Jesus always aware of his Son-ship, his divinity, or even his ministry? Or did this begin with his baptism in the desert, which was followed most significantly by his time of temptation (his cleansing?) in the desert?
I know it is in the creeds – that he was born without sin. But is it a sin for a man to look upon a woman sexually (or vice versa) if that person is not their spouse? How then do we find our spouses? Are we going to deny that sexual attraction is part of the equation? ( something which you hinted at in your post)
I think there are ‘good’ sexual thoughts as well as ‘bad’ sexual thoughts, just as we so easily can corrupt just about anything good that God has given us. I think Jesus, in reference to adulterous thoughts, was identifying the prurient, obsessive and destructive ‘bad’ thoughts of a sexual nature as something to avoid.
After all, who can deny that Betty Grable had a great set of gams?
Posted by Confession « All My Thoughts on God on November 5, 2007 at 7:12 pm
[...] I visited Suddenly Christian for the first time in a while and enjoyed this funny post. Then I saw that there are 44 comments and I thought, “My blog sucks.” Last week, I [...]
Posted by John Shore on November 5, 2007 at 7:23 pm
“A great set of gams.” Too much. And it’s true: Betty Grable DID have beautiful eyes. (This is a joke. I know “gams” really means boobs.)
Christian, do you REALLY wonder about this sort of stuff? I so don’t. EVER. But, as we’ve established, you’re smarter than I.
And more energetic: I never, ever wonder about stuff I KNOW I’ll never know the answer to. I can barely wonder about the stuff I CAN (and should, and must) know the answer to.
Did Jesus know he was God when he was a kid. Who could possibly know that?
That said, you know what I think? I think he existed in a state of consciousness such that he UNDERSTOOD, without “knowing,” that he wasn’t … from around these parts.
Then, John baptized him, and … the sky parted, and at that moment he KNEW knew what he’d always known.
That’s my guess.
As to “Is it a sin to look lustfully at a woman who’s not your wife?” To me, sins come in degrees: there is this massive continuum between, say, “didn’t recycle one can” and “murdered a baby.” So, to me, yes, it is a “sin” to look upon a woman lustfully, insofar as doing so encourages me to think of her not as a PERSON, but as a body. (Did you ever see The Anchorman? If so, didn’t you think that scene where Will Farrell first talks to … Christina Whatsername [Applegate?]–the female lead–is the FUNNIEST THING YOU’VE EVER SEEN ON FILM? EVER?? He’s all, “I like it. I wanna’ get to know it. And you’re sittin’ on it.” Just wipes me out.)
Anyway, right. To the degree that INHERENT in lustful thoughts is the dehumanization of the person you’re lusting after, it’s a “sin.” But, value-wise, it’s got to be a sin right up there with, like, not spreading the peanut butter on your sandwhich all the way to edge.
You see a pretty woman; you instantly picture Major Rudeness; you keep shopping for produce, or whatever you’re doing. No sweat. I don’t think God’s gonna go, “Gee, I’d like to let you into heaven, but remember that mini-PORNO MOVIE you had yourself starring in inside your head that time in that produce department? Down elevator’s over there, pal. See how you like women when they’re so hot they’re actually BURNING ALIVE. NEXT!”
So I figure that won’t happen.
You want to know why I think humans have the whole … sex drive/thing they do? Because it’s the ONE area of our life and experience that we can’t understand, ever, and that makes everyone crazy. Everyone–EVERYONE–is absolutely bonkers about sex. I think it’s God’s Big Way of making sure that no one, ever, really feels like it’s possible for them to be in total control of their lives.
Posted by Christian on November 6, 2007 at 6:15 am
John, I don’t ‘worry’ about much. I just think it’s fun to discuss these things and sometimes I even learn something. (Although I do worry about how we tend to take faith and make it into something that is a burden and not a joy, for ourselves and others. Not talking about this blog or your thoughts – I think you know what I mean.) BTW- are you poking fun at me? All that ’smart’ talk – I can be sensitive, you know?
I think Jesus was making a point about a male dominated society that held little respect for women, requiring them to be obedient as well as a source of erotic imagery.Meanwhile the men can take comfort in that they never ‘act’ out their obsessions. Then wrap the woman up in robes from head to foot because after all they are to blame for our (male) uncontrollable urges.
I don’t think seeing and appreciating the sexual characteristics of a woman (or a man, for that matter) is what lust means. It more closely represents an obsession. We talk of lusting after food, drink, money, power etc. as well as sex.
Posted by John Shore on November 6, 2007 at 6:23 am
I actually didn’t suggest you “worry” about any of this: I asked if you “wondered” about it. Which I only mention because I wouldn’t like the obnoxiously subtle condescention of “worry.” As you didn’t either, maybe.
And no, I’m really just saying that you’re smart! You are! Clearly!
And yeah, you’re sure right about your definition of “lust.” That’s the classic sense of the word, for sure.
You said that stuff about women, and how men were “requiring them to be obedient as well as a source of erotic imagery.” Boy, thank God all THAT’S changed, huh?
Posted by Christian on November 6, 2007 at 8:07 am
Oops! Busted for not really reading what has been written. Sorry about that, would’ve avoided all my unnecessary verbiage. And you are so right-on about the way we no longer look at woman erotically. Of course that little spikey-thing wrapped around my thigh helps a lot.
BTW- Gams are legs- are you pulling my chain again?
Posted by John Shore on November 6, 2007 at 8:58 am
HA! You know what really, REALLY helps me not look lustfully upon women so often I’m surprised some kind of Thought Police don’t just arrest me? Being almost 50. The whole Less Testosterone As You Get Older thing has REALLY been working for me. I think that of all God’s gifts, one of the BEST is that as we reach the age in which we are actually LESS sexually desirable, we desire sex less. It’s such a perfectly harmonious arrangement that just thinking about it makes me want to cry. And then beat off into a sock.
Because, you know: Guy Till I Die.
Yes, I do know gams are legs. I just thought the boobs joke was funny.
Boobs. Jerk-off jokes. What the heck has HAPPENED to my blog here??
I blame you.
Posted by Christian on November 6, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Me?! I’m still recovering from the shock. And yes, I too, have my 50th birthday dead centered in the cross hairs. Unfortunately I seem to have traded in my trusty repeater for this old single shot .22.
Jeesh!
Posted by John Shore on November 6, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Ew. Gross.
Posted by meigh on November 9, 2007 at 1:27 am
i bet you wouldn’t have thought of that. haha. kidding. i’m a new reader. and a new fan of your wife, Cat. she should start her own blog! haha.
kidding aside, your blog is really fun and full of insights. i saw this link through crosswalk, and I’ve put your link everywhere i can just so people can read your posts. i hope that’s okay.
keep posting!
Posted by John Shore on November 9, 2007 at 3:48 am
You BITCH!!
Ha, ha, ha.
No, of course: thank you very much, Meigh. I certainly do appreciate it. I look forward to reading whatever comments you ever care to leave.
Posted by meigh on November 9, 2007 at 9:30 am
LOL
i’ll certainly be leaving more comments in your future posts. especially those that will feature more of Cat’s words of wisdom
Posted by John Shore on November 9, 2007 at 9:42 am
Oh, I’m sorry, I just remembered: You’re not going to be allowed to leave any comments. Bummer. Oh, well.
Posted by Skerrib on November 11, 2007 at 10:50 am
As part of an email that had nothing to do with this post or comment thread, my pastor presented this definition for lust:
“Lust is when we desire something that is not ours to have.”
I like this definition for two reasons–a) it doesn’t mention sex anywhere. While sex-related lust is the first type we think of, it’s important to remember that, even if we somehow avoid the whole sex-drive-lust thing, we ALL lust in some way.
and b) I thought it fit in quite nicely with our above discussions.
Posted by dave on November 13, 2007 at 7:58 am
i enjoyed this. great points. both of you
Posted by Gene Thomas on November 20, 2007 at 5:50 am
I would like to suggest that “to look lustfully at” means to look at for the purpose of imagining . . . well, you know. For the purpose of.
Posted by John Shore on November 20, 2007 at 7:13 am
Go ahead, Gene. You can say it. No one’s listening anymore. Because I, for one, have no idea what you’re talking about.