Christian ministry under threat...

[The Liturgist]

I understand it completely differently. In my understanding, the sin of coveting is a case of attraction with desire. It's one thing to admire your neighbour's car, and it's no sin. But to want your neighbour's car, to be willing - were the circumstances favourable and you thought you could get away with it - to somehow obtain your neighbour's car, or the use of it; that's when it's coveting, and a sin. It's Ahab being willing to kill Naboth to get his vineyard, for example.

I think you are right on this point, because otherwise car shows would be inherently sinful. I have a beautiful Dodge Charger sedan from 2008 that is the best car I’ve ever owned, and I love keeping it looking sharp so the neighbors can appreciate its elegance. My father, who had a Ferrari, said it was the most beautiful car he ever saw and loved driving it. Surely he was not coveting it, and indeed when I drive it I feel like I am visiting with it and some of my other deceased friends who have driven it over the years. It also has an interesting history which I will share with anyone interested that would make for a good action movie.

My neighbor has a gorgeous turquoise and white 1957 Cadillac sedan which I love looking at, but I don’t want to own it, and frankly I would be scared to drive it unless he modernized the brakes. 50s cars are not known for being able to stop on a dime, and my Charger has an emergency brake feature where if you floor the brake pedal with Electronic Stability Protection engaged the car will come to a computer-optimized emergency stop while avoiding wheel spin. That feature is something I really prefer to have.

Still, I love looking at his car, he loves looking at mine, and we display our cars like our gardens, as a blessing for the neighborhood. I think covetous requires an impassioned and spiritually distracting desire to have something, maybe not to steal it, but to have it, and can also involve a desire not to share what one does have, although that may be better defined as avarice, another sinful passion.

 

[Paidiske]

So an aesthetic appeal is not the same as that next level where something is responding inside of us that wants to do something wrong.

And, I would argue, sexual orientation is not that next level either. It has to go beyond what one notices or appreciates to wanting to do something, and that goes beyond orientation.

You can find people of either sex to be aesthetically appealing, without any sexual thoughts at all, as @The Liturgist noted earlier, just as you might find a sunset or a flower aesthetically appealing.

But the actual temptation comes in when you see a person and the temptation hits to continue looking and foster sexual thoughts...

Sexual orientation is not just an aesthetic appreciation, like enjoying art, or architecture, etc.

It is that second level, beyond aesthetic appreciation, and which can present as temptation

I think there's something in between these two situations, though.

I think - for example, I shall speak of myself rather than a complete hypothetical - of a situation I encountered recently, where I met someone I found very attractive. I suppose, objectively he might not be considered gorgeous, but for whatever reason, his particular combination of looks and manner and personality hit all my buttons. He's attractive to me, and I am aware of the potential within myself to want to foster sexual thoughts.

However, I don't want to foster sexual thoughts. He's married, I'm married, that's out of bounds. So instead, I've consciously chosen, not only not to interact with him in a manner that leads to the bedroom, but to build a friendship that is not based on sexual attraction.

Do I have the potential, within myself, for this to tip over into temptation, into lust, into sin? Sure. I recognise that potential. But I would argue that simply finding someone attractive, even being able to acknowledge that that person is attractive, and deliberately choosing not to foster any thoughts or actions which would lead to anything improper, does not rise to the level of the temptation, lust, sin.

And it's that possibility - of acknowledging attraction without then attaching lust or desire to it - that I see as absent from some of the other posts here.

A sinful desire is not sin in itself. ...

Simply put it is a desire.....to sin.....

It is not actually sin until you give into the desire.

And where I think we part ways irrevocably is that I don't see that simply finding someone attractive rises to that point.

 

[tall73]

First is, again, that you have equated attraction with desire, when I see those as quite separate. (Again, I can find someone quite attractive while having no desire - no will - to act on the attraction in any improper way).

You have equated desire and will here. Those are actually different.

So let's look at it this way. If I am attracted to a donut....it means I feel the pull of the donut. Something in me wants a donut (I should really stop using that example. Good thing we have no donuts in the house). That is attraction. It presents as a desire. I have made no choice about the desire for a donut yet. But I have a donut-ty desire. I have a desire....for a donut... that springs from within.

In the same way James says that when we are tempted, it is our desire within us.

Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

The desire is in us. And it tempts us when we see the object of our desire. The desire is not the will. The will is what engages once the temptation happens, one way or the other, to decide the outcome posed by the desire.

So let's say a single person sees a woman they do not know and is attracted. That single person feels the pull of the woman (not as a person, but as an object of pleasure). It is something inside the single person, the flesh, that wants it. It wants to look, wants to lust, to want to find pleasure in using the woman. It is that sinful nature that wants that in the first place that is the problem. The sinful nature has sinful desires. To give in, to engage the will to go after that desire, is sin.

So the desire is not the will/choice The desire comes before the choice, and it is the basis of the choice. Do I give in to my desire or not?

Of course, it is complicated in that prior to Christ we have little ability to resist the flesh. We are slaves to sin.

But in Christ we have been given everything we need for Godliness, so we have the opportunity to ask Christ to help us stand, or to give in.

The desire comes first, then the choice.

Now of course, it is a great help to make the decision to walk in the Spirit each day before the temptation ever comes along, and to determine that you will not give in to temptation. And the longer one walks in the Spirit the less likely you might be tempted at all, because your mind is renewed. Your flesh is crucified. It no longer has that pull, because the Spirit is in charge.

 

[tall73]

And, I would argue, sexual orientation is not that next level either. It has to go beyond what one notices or appreciates to wanting to do something, and that goes beyond orientation.

I think there's something in between these two situations, though.

I think - for example, I shall speak of myself rather than a complete hypothetical - of a situation I encountered recently, where I met someone I found very attractive. I suppose, objectively he might not be considered gorgeous, but for whatever reason, his particular combination of looks and manner and personality hit all my buttons. He's attractive to me, and I am aware of the potential within myself to want to foster sexual thoughts.

However, I don't want to foster sexual thoughts. He's married, I'm married, that's out of bounds. So instead, I've consciously chosen, not only not to interact with him in a manner that leads to the bedroom, but to build a friendship that is not based on sexual attraction.

Do I have the potential, within myself, for this to tip over into temptation, into lust, into sin? Sure. I recognise that potential.

So the potential to want to foster sexual thoughts......what is that? Sexual thoughts here would be definitionally sinful. So what is it in you that has that potential to sin, the potential to WANT to sin? Is it not the sinful nature, the flesh?

And how do you know it could? Was it because of previous experience? If so, then that means you already have that desire within you that James talks about.

Now that in this instance you said you recognized that, and didn't want to have sexual thoughts, that sounds like you are walking in Christ, so when the person who you have the potential to have sexual thoughts about appears, it does not have the same impact as it might otherwise. The desire is not pulling. Christ in you does not respond to that.

If there was nothing in you that you had encountered before that had the potential to want what was sinful, if there was nothing in you to be tempted, then this whole thought process likely would not have happened. It would just be, oh hi, nice to meet you.

So even in the thought process there is evidence of desires that you know are in your sinful nature, but that you have crucified in Christ.

That is great that you didn't feel tempted.

But I would argue that simply finding someone attractive, even being able to acknowledge that that person is attractive, and deliberately choosing not to foster any thoughts or actions which would lead to anything improper, does not rise to the level of the temptation, lust, sin.

In your wording you seem to conflate temptation and lust and sin.

Temptation is not the same as sin. The temptation comes from that desire that is within prior to the decision to act on it. Then the sin happens when you act on it:

Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

If you know from previous experience that you have that potential, it is because that sinful desire has presented before.

But this time, on the other hand, what you have described is more like:

Gal 5:24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Gal 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.

You were not tempted because Christ is not tempted to sin.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I understand it completely differently. In my understanding, the sin of coveting is a case of attraction with desire. It's one thing to admire your neighbour's car, and it's no sin. But to want your neighbour's car, to be willing - were the circumstances favourable and you thought you could get away with it - to somehow obtain your neighbour's car, or the use of it; that's when it's coveting, and a sin. It's Ahab being willing to kill Naboth to get his vineyard, for example.

Similarly with the lust Jesus speaks of. It's not lust, or sin, to find someone attractive. That's just part of being human. It tips over into sinful lust when you want to use that person for your pleasure; when - were the circumstances favourable and you thought you could get away with it - you would go there with them.

Actually if we apply what Jesus said - looking with lust = adultery.

As the same sex bond is against God's order, the 'looking' is always lustful because that is the lust that God has given them over to - among those who choose this sinful lifestyle.
In so doing they are making the 'creature' an idol and putting self in the centre instead of God's order.

I might mention also that it is common for Homosexuals to kiss straight folks against their will as if it were a sport.

Years later God reminded me of such an occasion and set me free of a spiritual bondage that came with the abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

You have equated desire and will here. Those are actually different.

So let's look at it this way. If I am attracted to a donut....it means I feel the pull of the donut. Something in me wants a donut (I should really stop using that example. Good thing we have no donuts in the house). That is attraction. It presents as a desire. I have made no choice about the desire for a donut yet. But I have a donut-ty desire. I have a desire....for a donut... that springs from within.

But is it not possible to acknowledge that the donut is appealing, is attractive, but not desire to eat it?

I still think there is an in-between point where desire is something we choose, something we will to do, beyond what is appealing or attractive.

So let's say a single person sees a woman they do not know and is attracted. That single person feels the pull of the woman (not as a person, but as an object of pleasure). It is something inside the single person, the flesh, that wants it. It wants to look, wants to lust, to want to find pleasure in using the woman. It is that sinful nature that wants that in the first place that is the problem. The sinful nature has sinful desires. To give in, to engage the will to go after that desire, is sin.

I would unpack it differently. I would say that to be attracted to a woman is not necessarily a fleshly drive to lust. The drive to lust, to want to use, can kick in from attraction, but attraction on its own is not that.

So the potential to want to foster sexual thoughts......what is that? Sexual thoughts here would be definitionally sinful. So what is it in you that has that potential to sin, the potential to WANT to sin? Is it not the sinful nature, the flesh?

Sure. But my argument is that simply that acknowledging that I find the other person attractive is not yet a matter of the sinful nature.

And how do you know it could? Was it because of previous experience? If so, then that means you already have that desire within you that James talks about.

I would be lying if I said I never have any desire whatsoever to engage in any sexual impropriety. But my argument is that that desire is a level beyond noticing that someone is attractive.

If there was nothing in you that had the potential to want what was sinful, if there was nothing in you to be tempted, then this whole thought process likely would not have happened. It would just be, oh hi, nice to meet you.

Since attraction itself is not sinful, I disagree. Even if I were devoid of any sin in this regard, I could still find someone deeply attractive.

Temptation is not the same as sin. The temptation comes from that desire that is within prior to the decision to act on it.

No, temptation is not the same as sin. But desire - the drive to do what one is tempted to do - that is sin. That is why even looking with lust is adultery.

 

[Paidiske]

Actually if we apply what Jesus said - looking with lust = adultery.

As the same sex bond is against God's order, the 'looking' is always lustful because that is the lust that God has given them over to - among those who choose this sinful lifestyle.

But attraction is not lust. They're not the same thing.

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually if we apply what Jesus said - looking with lust = adultery.

As the same sex bond is against God's order, the 'looking' is always lustful because that is the lust that God has given them over to - among those who choose this sinful lifestyle.
In so doing they are making the 'creature' an idol and putting self in the centre instead of God's order.

I might mention also that it is common for Homosexuals to kiss straight folks against their will as if it were a sport.

Years later God reminded me of such an occasion and set me free of a spiritual bondage that came with the abuse.

Indeed this is correct, as are the remarks of @tall73 . Looking with lust is adultery, and since someone with a “homosexual orientation”, in other words, someone under the control of the passions of lust rather than vice versa, will look at men, particularly young men, with lust, automatically, and thus the homosexual orientation is in and of itself sinful.

Consequently conquering lust entails conquering homosexuality and also male sexual promiscuity.

 

[tall73]

I would unpack it differently. I would say that to be attracted to a woman is not necessarily a fleshly drive to lust. The drive to lust, to want to use, can kick in from attraction, but attraction on its own is not that.

When you describe attraction in this setting is it the same as looking at a beautiful painting, or a sunset? Or is it something else beyond aesthetics?

Is it an attraction that can be to someone with a good personality, without sexual feelings, such as, this is a good person to hang around?

 

[The Liturgist]

At any rate, I thought we had agreed to hold this discussion until Bright Monday. I am uncomfortable discussing this while the church is liturgically recapitulating the Passion, and the burial of our Lord 2,000 years ago, when He, to paraphrase the Eastern liturgical texts the Word God who created all things and cannot be confined, was confined in a tomb and harrowed the very fires of Hell to rescue the righteous, before the appointed time for His Resurrection and on the Feast of the Resurrection itself. So both the Paschal Triduum this week and next week out of respect for the persecuted Christians of the east and those in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus suffering because of an evil war, I am not going to discuss this further and I encourage everyone to do likewise. In fact I feel I engaged in hamartia by posting a reply a few minutes ago.

I know of one Christian forum that shuts down during the first week of Lent and from Palm Sunday through Easter Sunday. This is probably excessive, but abstaining from intense debates during the Gregorian and Julian Triduum is probably good, because we can set aside our differences and unite in prayers of thanksgiving for the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ our God through which we are saved and remade in His image, as the New Adam.

 

[Carl Emerson]

But attraction is not lust. They're not the same thing.

But for the unregenerate they are enticed by lust.

 

[Carl Emerson]

At any rate, I thought we had agreed to hold this discussion until Bright Monday. I am uncomfortable discussing this while the church is liturgically recapitulating the Passion, and the burial of our Lord 2,000 years ago, when He, to paraphrase the Eastern liturgical texts the Word God who created all things and cannot be confined, was confined in a tomb and harrowed the very fires of Hell to rescue the righteous, before the appointed time for His Resurrection and on the Feast of the Resurrection itself. So both the Paschal Triduum this week and next week out of respect for the persecuted Christians of the east and those in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus suffering because of an evil war, I am not going to discuss this further and I encourage everyone to do likewise. In fact I feel I engaged in hamartia by posting a reply a few minutes ago.

I know of one Christian forum that shuts down during the first week of Lent and from Palm Sunday through Easter Sunday. This is probably excessive, but abstaining from intense debates during the Gregorian and Julian Triduum is probably good, because we can set aside our differences and unite in prayers of thanksgiving for the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ our God through which we are saved and remade in His image, as the New Adam.

I agree with this - lets have a recess...

 

[tall73]

But is it not possible to acknowledge that the donut is appealing, is attractive, but not desire to eat it?

I still think there is an in-between point where desire is something we choose, something we will to do, beyond what is appealing or attractive.

If I were a person who didn't like donuts at all, then they would not be attractive or appealing to me at all. I would not have any internal desire for donuts.

But if, on the other hand, I do like donuts, then that comes into play when I encounter donuts.

If they are presented to me at a meeting or something, I usually think "oh a donut, that looks good. However, I am on a low-carb diet, so I have to say no."

The donut in that scenario is tempting me. I can still say no. But even as I say no I will internally realize I would like to eat the donut. But I also realize that the negative consequences are not worth it. So I say no to the donut, but I was tempted.

Now as someone who likes donuts, there can be times I recognize I would normally find donuts appealing, but because I was sick, or because I just ate a meal and was not hungry, or someone just sneezed on the donuts, I don't find them appealing at the moment. But I still remember even in that scenario that I like donuts. in the generic. The general bent to find donuts attractive is still there, but is repressed due to circumstances. But in that moment I am NOT attracted to donuts.

So is it possible to acknowledge the donut is attracting you but not eat it? Sure. But if you had to decide whether to eat the donut or not, then it was tempting you to eat it.

If, however, at the given point in time you don't desire the donut at all, due to circumcstances, but normally you would, then you are acknowledging the historical attractiveness of the donut that you do not currently feel. So you are not actively finding it attractive. You are just remembering you normally would find it attractive.

So no, I don't think there is an attraction that doesn't desire to eat it. The attraction IS the desire. If you don't desire to eat it at that moment, then it is not attractive at that moment. You just realize that it would normally be.

This may even be a matter of word connotations:

The definition I just pulled off of Google for desire is:

de·sire
/dəˈzī(ə)r/
noun
noun: desire; plural noun: desires
a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.

So when you say:

But is it not possible to acknowledge that the donut is appealing, is attractive, but not desire to eat it?

I think it would be better to say:

Is it not possible to acknowledge that the donut is appealing, is attractive, but not CHOOSE to eat it?

Either you want the donut or you do not.

If you want the donut you desire it. If you don't want the donut you don't desire it. If you desire it but choose not to eat it, that is resisting the desire for the donut.

 

[tall73]

I agree with this - lets have a recess...

I have no objection to a recess. However, I don't think contemplating the love of Christ in His passion is out of step with discussion of His living in us now.

If that is the feeling for you all, that is fine, we can wait.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I have no objection to a recess. However, I don't think contemplating the love of Christ in His passion is out of step with discussion of His living in us now.

If that is the feeling for you all, that is fine, we can wait.

My wife has covid and I may be exposed- RAT ok so far but tomorrow will be telling.

 

[tall73]

My wife has covid and I may be exposed- RAT ok so far but tomorrow will be telling.

Sorry to hear. Will pray for you both.

Will this mean quarantining then? Bad timing if so.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But the Bill makes it illegal to pray in the sexual preference area even when permission is given.

If the prayer is generic and sexual preference is not mentioned, then there is no proof that any illegal has occurred. The person may go forward to receive prayer for his sexual preference issue, and he asks for prayer concerning it, if the person doesn't mention it in his prayer, but prays just that the will of God be done in that person's life, there can be no proof that the prayer is directed at the person's sexual preference. It is no crime to pray that the will of God be done in a person's life. If a complaint is made, the complainant has to prove beyond doubt that the person praying actually used the words referring to sexual preference during the wording of the prayer. The person going up to receive prayer may know it, and the person praying may know it, and the complainant might also know it, but unless the words relating to sexual preference are actually used, the complaint could not be proved in court.

 

[Paidiske]

I am, for the moment, content to make this reply and then leave it further.

since someone with a “homosexual orientation”, in other words, someone under the control of the passions of lust rather than vice versa, will look at men, particularly young men, with lust, automatically,

No! This is an appalling slander. Just having an orientation, or a tendency to find a particular type of person attractive, does not mean someone automatically looks with lust.

You might as well say that all straight men automatically look at women, particularly attractive women, with lust; but I disagree.

When you describe attraction in this setting is it the same as looking at a beautiful painting, or a sunset? Or is it something else beyond aesthetics?

Is it an attraction that can be to someone with a good personality, without sexual feelings, such as, this is a good person to hang around?

I think it's related to aesthetics, but I think when it's interpersonal, it takes on a dimension that's not there for a painting or a sunset. Humans are built for relationships and there is that pull towards one another that's not sexual, or at least has a dimension that's not sexual.

I think, when we're talking about sexual orientation, we're talking about a tendency to find appealing; as one person described it to me, in the first instance it's what you notice, even without intending to look.

But for the unregenerate they are enticed by lust.

But again, that's not the same thing as simple attraction.

If you want the donut you desire it. If you don't want the donut you don't desire it. If you desire it but choose not to eat it, that is resisting the desire for the donut.

I am thinking of the Latin; id quod volo (that which I desire); but that is the same verb for what I will. (So in the old Latin marriage rite, "Will you..." was responded to with "volo," "I will." That is, not a future tense, but a present tense I will to do it. It's at the root of English words such as volunteer and voluntary, arising from the free exercise of one's will. It's that range of words which is informing the way I think about the difference between attraction, desire, choice and so on.

So, in that semantic field, what I will or choose to do is the same as what I desire to do. When you speak of "desire," I read that as "what I choose, or would choose to do if I could." Not, "what might appeal to me but I would not choose." That latter sense is closer to what I mean by attraction but not desire.

@Carl Emerson Prayers for you and your wife!

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sorry to hear. Will pray for you both.

Will this mean quarantining then? Bad timing if so.

Yes we miss all Easter services.

Thanks for the prayers...

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It's not normal for unsaved people to attend church prayer meetings. I think it would be silly for a church member to actually invite an unsaved person to a prayer meeting. The invite would be more to an evangelistic service where the Gospel would be preached.

However, this applied directly to LGBT people complaining about being mind control prayed by pentecostals. It's just not pentecostals though, it's a common church practice.