B
Benadam
Guest
I didn’t deny that.
- Status
B
Benadam
Guest
Changing that is enabled by the sacramental life offered by the Church. It’s practicality is proven in it’s longevity I would think.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
The Chinese Empire lasted significantly longer than the Catholic Church has (so far). Does that mean that that Chinese model of social and political organization is superior to the Catholic one?
B
Benadam
Guest
I would say it’s practicality is proven.
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Don’t forget the Roman empire lasted longer than the Church so far, and that was a culture of terror.
Generally Catholics believe that all great societies rise and fall except the Church
F
FNDRB58
Guest
Do you have a reason for not accepting it? You came to a religious based site asking the question about lust with the intention, I would presume, to try to understand our take on the matter. I and others have given you the Catholic perspective and…definition. I wouldn’t expect an atheist to accept our explanations but just saying, “I don’t accept it,” pretty much ends the dialogue. Sorry we couldn’t be of any help to you. Good luck.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
That’s funny.Do you have a reason for not accepting it? You came to a religious based site asking the question about lust with the intention, I would presume, to try to understand our take on the matter. I and others have given you the Catholic perspective and…definition. I wouldn’t expect an atheist to accept our explanations but just saying, “I don’t accept it,” pretty much ends the dialogue. Sorry we couldn’t be of any help to you. Good luck.
My argument doesn’t convince you so the debate must be over, goodby
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
That could just be provincial arrogance you know…
I doubt most Chinese in the 19th century seriously considered the idea that their empire could fall.
S
schaubj57
Guest
There is a difference in lustful thoughts and attraction thoughts.I have a question about the words that Jesus said when He said if you look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have committed adultry with her. Now, I understand that adultry is a big sin in religion, but equally, in the secular world, it’s pretty bad for the health of the relationship, kids, and so on … so it has big consequences regardless if youre religious or not. So my issue is not with the physical ACT of adultry.
It’s more trying to understand how you CANT look at someone with lust, when you first meet, and are interested in that person. My husband is an awesome guy, a great father, a wonderful provider, a generous kind and loving husband, a considerate son, and a great lover, and he’s also my best friend… but, truth be out, I never knew any of that when I first set eyes on him - I just lusted after him
So how does that work? According to the Bible, Ive already committed adultry with him, before I even said hi to him
But without that lust, that curiosity, that interest to find out more, I would never have known any of the above … I certainly couldnt tell just by looking at him … I could only tell what the physical reaction was
And boy am I glad for it. But it leaves me wondering how do you reconcile that with the Bible.
Sarah x
If you said something along the lines of: “Wow he’s cute” or “He’s handsome” or “He’s got a great smile” those are thoughts of attraction as you are attracted to someone because of a feature that catces your eye. Certainly not lustful.
If you saw him and said: “I’d let him do anything he wanted to to me” or “I’d love to take him home for the night” then is is lust as you have purely sexual desire for someone. It’s no different then whena priests tells someone they look nice in what they are wearing be it a dress or skirt or suit if the occassion calls for it. I don’t know how many storeis I heard of my cousin who was a priest telling brides they looked nice on their wedding day. He certainly didn’t say that as a form of lust but a compliment.
I fight lust verses thoughts of attraction everyday. I know it’s lustful to have weaknesses for redheads. I try everyday to refrain from allowing that to manifest itself and I’m doing a great job of it but God knows I am a human and human nature is going to take over at times and when it does I know I have to receive reconciliation and penance for those times. It’s when you can look at a person of the opposite gender and see them as a person and not a sex object that you are pleasing to God and God will remember that. So don’t focus on is it lust or isn’t it. Just keep your mind and thoughts pure and things won’t be so bad or confusing for you.
F
FNDRB58
Guest
Your only rebuttal to my posts was your comment, “I don’t agree with your definition.”That’s funny.
My argument doesn’t convince you so the debate must be over, goodby
Not much of an argument.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Wow - some really interesting reading and replies here. My thanks to everyone for the discussion.
I STILL think there is a little bit of playing with words going on but some posts were particularly interesing and enlightening from the catholic/christian perspective.
I really do think I have a better understanding of how the church looks at it and defines it, but in the real world, in the world of hormonal rage and normal natural sexual attraction, Im not too sure how all that plays out.
Im just so glad Im married to my husband and no longer ‘‘lust’’ after men 
Now excuse me, there’s a new 22 year old athletic guy in the warehouse and Ive decided to take personal charge of his work induction
Thanks to all.
Sarah x
I STILL think there is a little bit of playing with words going on but some posts were particularly interesing and enlightening from the catholic/christian perspective.
I really do think I have a better understanding of how the church looks at it and defines it, but in the real world, in the world of hormonal rage and normal natural sexual attraction, Im not too sure how all that plays out.
Im just so glad Im married to my husband and no longer ‘‘lust’’ after men
Now excuse me, there’s a new 22 year old athletic guy in the warehouse and Ive decided to take personal charge of his work induction
Thanks to all.
Sarah x
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
But as Atheistgirl said before, if she kept her thoughts completely ‘pure’ then her relationship with her husband never would have advanced to the point where she could admire things like his generosity, compassion, etc.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
The idea that you can retain the sexual urge while removing all everything selfish and instinctive about it (e.g. sinful) is intellectually dishonest. Your purity is sterility, at least in the sexual sense.
When my eyes are drawn to a woman’s curves, its based on the same impulse that makes people have wet dreams, or engage in sexual fantasies while awake. Killing this impulse means killing the sex drive.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I have already pointed out some of the problems with the (current) Catholic definition of Lust in this thread. Its really a lot less sex affirming than the Church claims:shrug:
C
Captain_America
Guest
Part of attraction is sexual attraction in a slight way; “physical attraction.” Lust is committing some personal energies and imagination into the concoction brewing in your head.
I really doubt Catholics are “anti-sex” in the way that some denominations appear to be.
I think the concept of “wanton gaze” is a pretty useful one in the year 2011—we have plenty of sexual images, plenty of sexualized dressing. Best to control your eyes, women as well as men.
I really doubt Catholics are “anti-sex” in the way that some denominations appear to be.
I think the concept of “wanton gaze” is a pretty useful one in the year 2011—we have plenty of sexual images, plenty of sexualized dressing. Best to control your eyes, women as well as men.
S
shaky
Guest
How can you have already committed Adultery in your heart with him if he was a single man?I have a question about the words that Jesus said when He said if you look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have committed adultry with her. Now, I understand that adultry is a big sin in religion, but equally, in the secular world, it’s pretty bad for the health of the relationship, kids, and so on … so it has big consequences regardless if youre religious or not. So my issue is not with the physical ACT of adultry.
It’s more trying to understand how you CANT look at someone with lust, when you first meet, and are interested in that person. My husband is an awesome guy, a great father, a wonderful provider, a generous kind and loving husband, a considerate son, and a great lover, and he’s also my best friend… but, truth be out, I never knew any of that when I first set eyes on him - I just lusted after him
So how does that work? According to the Bible, Ive already committed adultry with him, before I even said hi to him
But without that lust, that curiosity, that interest to find out more, I would never have known any of the above … I certainly couldnt tell just by looking at him … I could only tell what the physical reaction was
And boy am I glad for it. But it leaves me wondering how do you reconcile that with the Bible.
Sarah x
I can understand if he was a married man then you would have committed adultery in the heart!
The quote what Jesus said applied to the married looking at other people or singles looking at at married people!
A single person looking at a single person is not committing adultery in the heart!
M
Matt_Tiza
Guest
The more that I read this thread, the more that I think that we have complicated the issue at hand.
You can quote the Catechism and such, but when you really look for a layman’s definition of Catholic sexuality you need to look no further than the following.
It must be open to procreation exclusively between a married husband and wife.
Other than that all bets are off. Open to procreation simply means that it must end in the biologically appropriate way to produce offspring (i.e. the male’s germ cells must be in the position to reach the female’s egg cells - no prophylaxis or withdrawal). The Church does not prohibit foreplay or any number of variations in technique. So you really can get all nasty as long as you keep it between one married husband and wife. I wish that the Church would elaborate on the definition in the Catechism to make it very clear that the Church is not prudish about intimacy between married couples. I think that this is where the confusion comes into play about the Church’s position on lust and “disordered desires.” The language is confusing to many.
Let’s be practical. How could the Church really dictate how everyone is supposed to feel about having intimate relations with their married partner? It doesn’t so it keeps it simple in saying that the married couple must keep the act open to procreation. The act itself might not specifically be intended to procreate at the time, but the couple does not use any conscious means to prevent a pregnancy.
What I have learned is that it is really important to be very attracted to your spouse. It keeps your attention focused on your spouse. When a couple is passionate for one another, intimacy comes naturally and outside temptations never manifest as you are never drawn to anyone else more than to your spouse. If you are not really and truly attracted to your spouse, than unfulfilled desires and distractions will interfere with your marriage. You can’t pretend to be attracted to your spouse, and it’s a bad sign if you have to turn out the lights to be intimate. I think that not being able to see your spouse is an invitation to lusting after someone else and a sign that you are not completely satisfied with your spouse.
What do you guys think?
You can quote the Catechism and such, but when you really look for a layman’s definition of Catholic sexuality you need to look no further than the following.
It must be open to procreation exclusively between a married husband and wife.
Other than that all bets are off. Open to procreation simply means that it must end in the biologically appropriate way to produce offspring (i.e. the male’s germ cells must be in the position to reach the female’s egg cells - no prophylaxis or withdrawal). The Church does not prohibit foreplay or any number of variations in technique. So you really can get all nasty as long as you keep it between one married husband and wife. I wish that the Church would elaborate on the definition in the Catechism to make it very clear that the Church is not prudish about intimacy between married couples. I think that this is where the confusion comes into play about the Church’s position on lust and “disordered desires.” The language is confusing to many.
Let’s be practical. How could the Church really dictate how everyone is supposed to feel about having intimate relations with their married partner? It doesn’t so it keeps it simple in saying that the married couple must keep the act open to procreation. The act itself might not specifically be intended to procreate at the time, but the couple does not use any conscious means to prevent a pregnancy.
What I have learned is that it is really important to be very attracted to your spouse. It keeps your attention focused on your spouse. When a couple is passionate for one another, intimacy comes naturally and outside temptations never manifest as you are never drawn to anyone else more than to your spouse. If you are not really and truly attracted to your spouse, than unfulfilled desires and distractions will interfere with your marriage. You can’t pretend to be attracted to your spouse, and it’s a bad sign if you have to turn out the lights to be intimate. I think that not being able to see your spouse is an invitation to lusting after someone else and a sign that you are not completely satisfied with your spouse.
What do you guys think?
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I find a lot in what you said very sad. Even beyond the blatant stereotyping you seem to have a lot of issues. To start with, if you lacked morals before finding religion, but somehow religion just magically turned you around, then you are not being good for the right reasons. You’re being good to get to heaven, not because its the right thing to do.
To answer your question. I’m an atheist. I’m not “busy” not believing in god. I just don’t. I also try to stay away from lust. We’ve seen the negative consequences of objectifying people. It hurts relationships, causes jealousy, and puts so much pressure on young girls and women to look like supermodels. What’s even crazier is because we have started objectifying men in much the same way, eating disorders among teen boys and men in their 20’s has skyrocketed.
People are not objects. They are people. And they deserve to be loved and appreciated (or not) based on who they are and how they treat people, not what they look like.
B
Bookcat
Guest
OLD thread.
- Status