Are there people out there who still adhere to Matthew 5:28?

[AHapka]

so that she will realize that her action (sexy) make other sin in their heart…

Nobody can make anybody sin. Nobody can make me sin. We all do it of our own choice.

However, anyone can lead anyone else into sin, and anyone can be an occasion of sin for someone else.

 

[Contarini]

Hi guys,

I am referring to the passage where it says:

Too many people nowadays have no qualms about this statement. I do know that it is involuntary for us to notice someone who is attractive and all that and some of the physical reactions we experience are also involuntary. Heck, I am a completely straight female and if I see a female with a great body I would be inclined to look myself. So in some sense I understand what it is like for the men out there to have struggles (even though I’m not struggling with same-sex attraction).

The thing is that people simply say with regard to men “looking” at women and women “looking” at men, “So what? Everyone does this.” But doesn’t anyone try to stop and think about what Matthew 5:28 means anymore? I’m basically talking about a marriage setting right now by the way.

Sorry if this sounds like a naive question or anything. I had a disagreement with someone about this today and it has been bothering my mind ever since. It has been bothering me simply because it is frustrating when my values conflict so much with someone else’s on the spot…

I think the adverb is unnecessarily and inaccurately vague (and in the NIV probably reflects an “all sins are equal” theology). The Greek uses a preposition with an infinitive, which could conceivably indicate simply result (“looks at her with the result that he lusts”) but very probably indicates purpose (“looks at her with the intention of lusting”). Traditional Christian theology holds that to commit a “mortal” sin (using the Catholic term here, but even Luther agreed that in practice, in this case in particular, this was a useful distinction) you have to have full knowledge and consent. Simply looking at a woman and feeling aroused is not equivalent to committing adultery. Looking at her and deliberately longing to have illicit sex with her, so that you would do so if there were no consequences–that is equivalent to committing adultery.

Edwin

 

[mom4truth]

Ahapka,

I think that’s probably what WATT meant. Good point!

 

[Magicsilence]

I know it’s very hard to define, but the closest I have ever heard is this: When you notice the first time, it’s not a sin. When you turn to look again…then you are sinning. I know it’s not hard and fast, but it is a good rule of thumb for most people. Because the second look tends to be when you are “checking them out.”

I’m wondering if I can posit a scenario that might explore this further.

So: a single girl walks into Church, and sits on a bench. Just before the Mass starts, a single guy rushes into mass thinking he is late and sits on the same bench as the girl. Because he rushed in, he knocked the bench, and the girl turns to see what had happened. They catch each others eye, and find each other attractive, but then break eye contact and concentrate on the priest for the Mass.

So far, no sin, agreed?

Then, the time comes to receive communion. The guy, deep in prayer, is waiting for other people to go before he stands up to go and receive. The girl however, would like to go ‘now’, and needs to go past the guy to get into the line to receive communion. As she asks him to get past, the guy looks up, makes eye contact and smiles. He could have just pulled his knees to one side, and kept looking towards the pews, but he didn’t.

Sin, or no sin?

After the Mass has finished, the guy remains deep in prayer. The girl finishes her prayer, and gets up to leave the bench. As she genuflects, she realises that she has a choice for when she stands up. If she turns to the left, she will turn away from the guy
, and not see him. But, if she turns to the right, she can glance over at him / his features before walking away. She turns right, and spends 2-3 seconds looking at his face (ruggedly handsome, and deep in prayer), before leaving. But, there is no mental ‘lust’ to accompany this, and she is not aroused.

Sin, or no sin?

 

[averheyen]

I think there is a huge difference between thinking, “They are attractive.” and having ‘other’ thoughts.

I wouldn’t try to balance things around that mentality.

Jesus said quite plainly: “Any man who looks at a woman lustfully is guilty of commiting adultery in his own heart.”

The idea of thinking “they are attravtive vs. other thoughts” is completely irrelevent.

When you look at a woman lustfully, you are guilty of commiting adultery in your own heart. Plain and simple. I don’t recall Jesus saying anything about, “well, it’s ok to notice attraction, but don’t have other thoughts.”

Again, he said quite blankly, when looking at another woman lustfully, you are guilty of commiting adultry in your own heart.

He didn’t mince words about that, and I think with very good reasoning.

I’d park myself around that.