Lust In Marriage

[kateri05]

i love that story holy bishops, yay :

[Budge]

[quote]

Lust is by definition a disorder of the sexual appetite. I think by "lust" some people take it to mean sexual attraction, but it is a disorder of sexual attraction, not legitimate attraction.
[/quote][quote]9 results for: Lust

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
lust /lʌst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[luhst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
[b]1. intense sexual desire or appetite.[/b]
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually fol. by for): a lust for power.
4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.
5. Obsolete.
a. pleasure or delight.
b. desire; inclination; wish.
–verb (used without object)
6. to have intense sexual desire.
[b]7. to have a yearning or desire; have a strong or excessive craving [/b](often fol. by for or after).
[Origin: bef. 900; ME luste, OE lust; c. D, G lust pleasure, desire; akin to ON lyst desire; see list4]

—Synonyms 7. crave, hunger, covet, yearn.[/quote]

So which definition is going to be adhered to here?

What is wrong with people having desire for their OWN spouse?


[quote]so you would say that lust = attraction?[/quote]Its defined that way in the dictionary.

Anyhow lets get the definitions here straight....

[quote]
Lust in marriage makes the wife the object of fullfilling the man's pleasure. The greater pleasure in marriage is making the object of my pleasure to please my wife when we make love. This ends up giving me greater satisfcation. Something you will not likely ever experience or understand quite clearly because of your hard heart in this matter. In a lust filled marriage the two are not one but two seeking their own individual pleasure.[/quote]

I dont believe that attraction for a spouse is wrong and I never said that a spouse should use their spouse selfishlessly. That is unfair for you to blather on about my "hard" heart in that area because one does not mean I meant the other.


[quote]lust = sexual desire VOID OF GOD's LOVE. it means loooking upon another human being as an object for your own personal fulfillment. that is not how God looks at us, nor how we are to use our bodies to express God's love.[/quote]

Hey if thats your definition for this discussion then Im FINE with it. I AGREE!!

That pastor looking at the girls and talking about it with his wife, was DISRESPECTING her and Sinning!

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='Budge' post='1250362' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:52 PM']Honestly I remember writing that even sex in marriage is looked down on by the Catholic Church...[/quote]

Budge, just because you write something, doesn't make it true. I know that's a hard concept for you and you ilk to grasp.

[Aloysius]

yeah I figured we agreed. Catholics are following the traditional understanding of what "lust" is, which is a vice, ie when Christ says "whosoever lusts after a woman in his heart has already committed adultery"; and you were coming from a more modern understanding of the word "lust" which is, in our sad society, how any and all sexual desire is described.

lust is evil and disordered. love is pure and good. you never lust after your spouse, such a thing would be a sin. you love your spouse.

again, it's a common popular usage of the term which makes 'lust" any and all type of attraction.

[kateri05]

the definition of lust given in the dictionary includes all usages and connotations.


however, lust, properly understood theologically - it [i]is[/i] one of the seven deadly sins - is sexual desire VOID OF GOD's LOVE. their is sexual desire in and of itself, a neutral (maybe even a good, since God made us with this to show forth love in our bodies?); sexual desire properly ordered within marraige, a moral good and lust (and all its derivatives - masturbation, fornication, adultery, covetousness, contraception, etc), disordered sexual desire.


it is important to understand that sexual desire and lust are never synonyms theologically.

Edited April 21, 2007 by kateri05

[RezaMikhaeil]

I think a major problem isn't just that Protestants don't see marriage as a sacrament but fail to see it's significance in the bigger picture and chose to see sex as a sacrament instead.

Back when I'd attended a Protestant Bible College, they taught that the book "Song of Songs/Song of Solomon" wasn't symbolic for nothing more then a man's attraction to woman and didn't seem to make the connection to God and his bride [the church].

Budge mentioned women's shelters and I'm going to say that I think women's shelters are like contraceptives, as in they don't solve the real problem. Alot of people that are pro-contraceptives say "well its better then these girls having abortions" just as feminist women that put emphisis on women's shelters don't see that it's just masking the problem. Jesus Christ emphisized being transformed from the inside. A particular scripture that I'm in favor of is:

[quote]1 Peter 3:3-5, "Your adornment should be not an exterior one, consisting of braided hair or gold jewellery or fine clothing, but the interior disposition of the heart, consisting in the imperishable quality of a gentle and peaceful spirit, so precious in the sight of God. That was how the holy women of the past dressed themselves attractively - they hoped in God and were submissive to their husbands, like Sarah, who was obedient to Abraham, and called him her [i]Lord[/i]. You are now her children, as long as you live good lives free from fear and worry."[/quote]

This scripture, doesn't just give an example for women but for men too, as to what the difference between attraction and lust consist of... Attraction isn't just "wow baby, you got a bangin body". Speaking as a man that has been married for over 3 years, with a daughter, I can say that my attraction to her goes much deeper then her physical appearance and thou her body is attractive to me, our initial connection wasn't that. Even after being married for several years, we didn't partake in the physical aspect of our relationship until we decided to have children because we were so consumed with the spiritual aspect. She's a very submissive wife [who actually brought these scriptures to me after we were married for a year, and said that she'd like to be more like them], ultra modest and the most attractive to me. In every ounce of honestly, I'm not on her level in so many ways and don't give her what she deserves [but I'm working on it].

Reza

[Budge]

To be hoenst with you I consider womens shelter the very last resort, this lady should have had fellow church members or family to turn to if she was being abused. I would rather some one go to the worse feminazi womens shelter for a couple days though then become a murderer.[quote]Even after being married for several years, we didn't partake in the physical aspect of our relationship until we decided to have children because we were so consumed with the spiritual aspect.[/quote]

You do realize the state doesnt even consider a couple married until things have been consummated....that means in a way you werent really married til after the several years were up.

If you wanted a roommate why not just get one? or stay engaged until you were sure you wanted to be married?
[b]
1Co 7:5

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.[/b]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Budge' post='1250737' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:04 PM']To be hoenst with you I consider womens shelter the very last resort, this lady should have had fellow church members or family to turn to if she was being abused. I would rather some one go to the worse feminazi womens shelter for a couple days though then become a murderer.

[color="#FF0000"]It shouldn't have to there to begin with...[/color]

You do realize the state doesnt even consider a couple married until things have been consummated....that means in a way you werent really married til after the several years were up.

[color="#FF0000"]That isn't true actually, a simple "kiss" fulfills every state requirement. If it had to do with intercourse, witnesses would have to witness the intercourse to prove that it had taken place. It's quite the opposite thou, simply living together for seven years is common law marriage, what goes on inside of a marriage doesn't concern the legal system. Moreover, I don't really care much about what the government thinks to begin with [if you didn't already know]. I don't believe that a simple legal marriage validates someone being married with God, and I definately don't subscribe to the legal system's definitions of marriage [or much more outside of that to be honest] but I was legally married in order to fulfill the legal requirements as not to go to prison or face other consequences. Legally we're just a piece of paper to the government, nothing more and our children [and everything else inside of the marriage] is considered to belong to the state [which is why parents are forced to give their children vaccines that they don't agree with, etc]. It's only through extensive other legal battles can people be considered more [which I'd done].[/color]

If you wanted a roommate why not just get one? or stay engaged until you were sure you wanted to be married?

[color="#FF0000"]We were married, obviously according to your defination, the difference between being married and not married is simply having sex... what a way to degrade yourself and your spouse. That's no different then prostitution with a contract, but I happen to believe that being married is much more then that young lass and being married, I'm going to advise you not to ever get married until you learn the true meaning of marriage.[/color]


[b]
1Co 7:5

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.[/b]

[color="#FF0000"]A more proper translation would be:

[b]You must not deprive each other, except by mutual consent for a limited time, to leave yourselves free for prayer, and to come together again afterwards; otherwise Satan may take advantage of any lack of self-control to put you to the test.[/b]

Let me define a few terms for you:

[b]1.) Deprive: to remove or withhold something from the enjoyment or possession of (a person or persons): to deprive a man of life; to deprive a baby of candy.

2.) Mutual: of or pertaining to each of two or more; held in common; shared: mutual interests.

3.) Self-control: control or restraint of oneself or one's actions, feelings, etc. [/b]

Now let me say that we were never "deprived" [to withhold something fro the enjoyment or possession of a person] of each other, we had a mutual [of or pertaining to each of two or more, held in common, shared: mutual interest] agreement that we weren't in need of such an element at that moment [and still practice abstinence a bit], and had [and still have] self control [control or restraint of oneself or one's actions, feelings, etc] as the scriptures themselves say that we should have self control [it's a fruit of the spirit if you didn't know]. I was never tempted and she was never tempted. It's no wonder, based upon your definition of marriage, that Evangelical Protestants have such a high divorce rate amongst themselves. Copts have pretty much a zero percet divorce rate [as you probably know that Roman Catholics divorce rate is also substantially low]. Throughout my lifetime, I'd know mass amounts of Evangelical Protestants that professed to be "born again" to be divorced but never met a Copt family to have ever been divorced. Evangelical Protestants have a higher divorce rate then the secular public, and I'm posetive that their doctrinal stance has everything to do with it, "if you don't like this wife, just find another that you will like"... what a way to degrade the sacrament of marriage and each other. Wanna talk about women's rights, encouraging a woman to be a sex buddy of her husband is the worst form of slavery known to man! However, a couple in the greatest amount of romantic love that could exist on the face of the planet, having self-control and mutually agreeing with their sexuality and spirituality is the most cherished and is the greatest gift of love and freedom known to man.[/color][/quote]

[kateri05]

actually, the Church says that your marraige isn't valid (ie a true sacrament) until it has been consummated. this is because conjugal union is the actual matter of the sacrament of marriage (vows are the form) and a sacrament doesn't occur without both matter and form.

i'm curious as well. why not stay engaged until you felt you were ready to begin a one flesh union with your spouse?



not to mention that parents are not forced to vaccinate their kids; it is entirely legal and permissable to exempt your children from vaccines. some public schools do require forms to be filled out, but um, yea. you're allowed to do that.

Edited April 21, 2007 by kateri05

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1250803' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:38 PM']actually, the Church says that your marraige isn't valid (ie a true sacrament) until it has been consummated. this is because conjugal union is the actual matter of the sacrament of marriage (vows are the form) and a sacrament doesn't occur without both matter and form.

[color="#FF0000"]As you mentioned, vows are but one form, but I'd also like to mention that there were Saints that also didn't partake in the physical aspect of the relationship because they were very consumed with the spiritual side and weren't ready for that. Not everyone partakes in every aspect instantly, everyone in god's timing. I'd also like to point out that St. Augustine had once written [and I can't remember the title of the writing off hand but could find it] that sexual intercourse is just for reproductive purposes [not that I agree with him, just that not everyone is ready for this and there's a fine line between attraction and lust].[/color]

i'm curious as well. why not stay engaged until you felt you were ready to begin a one flesh union with your spouse?

[color="#FF0000"]Is marriage just about sex? Is sex the main purpose of being married? I believe that marriage is much larger then that, but really it had nothing to do with me and everything to do with God. I wasn't just going to partake in the physical aspect of the relationship if it wasn't the right time. Most divorced couples I know, the first fruit of the marriage that they partook in was intercourse, and the last aspect was prayer. The first aspect that my wife and I partook in was prayer and scriptural readings, and the last aspect was child bearing [and everything that goes with it].[/color]

not to mention that parents are not forced to vaccinate their kids; it is entirely legal and permissable to exempt your children from vaccines. some public schools do require forms to be filled out, but um, yea. you're allowed to do that.

That's not entirely true, you have to go through an extensive legal process.[/quote]

[kateri05]

of course marriage isn't "just" about sex. children are the primary end of marriage and sex=kids. if you aren't ready for sex, you aren't ready for kids, then you aren't ready for marraige. prayer is most DEFINITELY a part of that, but thats what separates marriage from friendship. eros is a higher love than philia, and in marriage, you need eros. otherwise, why get married? (see cs lewis)


vows aren't "one" form, they are THE form and sex is THE matter. all sacraments have form and matter - eucharist form=words of consecration, matter=bread and wine; baptism form=trinitarian formula, matter =water. marriage form = vows, matter=sex.


those saints who lived in continence consummated their marriage first and had children. THEN they abstained.

[kateri05]

ps. are you catholic? because that could explain some differences we're having here. your view on marriage doesn't seem to fit with the Church's.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1250362' date='Apr 20 2007, 02:52 PM']I read a news article about that case...

77 shotgun pellets is how many holes this guy had in him and he was shot in the back.

That makes me really wonder...and the lady should have just left, that is what women's shelters are for, yes I know that can be difficult but I am disturbed that the guy was shot in the back.

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/19/winkler.trial/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/19/winkler.trial/index.html[/url]

This case IS a TRAGEDY...all around, but change of topic here....

Lust in marriage? Honestly what is that about? Its "wrong" to be attracted to your spouse?
Man and wife are all supposed to live like roommates and come together when its time to procreate only and the women are to lay back and "think of England" as Queen Victoria told one daughter?

Honestly I remember writing that even sex in marriage is looked down on by the Catholic Church and when I see nonsense like that, it backs me up.

You all must be young, and single to write this crazy stuff about marriage. Im happily married and think sheesh what are these people saying?

I guess Im one of those wild bad hellbound... Protestants whose actually attracted to her husband!
Quote:Heb 13:4
[b]
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:
[/b]
:1Co 7:5

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.[/quote]
Lust, as spoken of here (the sin of lust) means [i]disordered[/i] sexual desire.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to one's spouse, and if you'd actually read the Catholics' posts on here (rather than being so busy prosyletizing and twisting words) you'd be well aware of that.

Obviously, no one is claiming the problem here is that this man was sexually attracted to his wife, or that they enjoyed sexual intercourse - the problem was the insistence on using pornography and doing kinky stuff the woman found degrading. That is where lust comes in.
While I can't claim to know all the facts of this marriage, and can't say that this woman was an innocent victim, there was obviously something very screwed up about this marriage.

As for the Church being against married sex, that's about the silliest thing I've ever heard - I suppose that explains why all those orthodox Catholic couples are having so many babies and having happy and lasting marriages!

And do you even know anything about the Theology of the Body?

But of course, Budge has never been one to let the truth get in the way of her anti-Catholic proselytizing.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1250876' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:56 PM']of course marriage isn't "just" about sex. children are the primary end of marriage and sex=kids. if you aren't ready for sex, you aren't ready for kids, then you aren't ready for marraige. prayer is most DEFINITELY a part of that, but thats what separates marriage from friendship. eros is a higher love than philia, and in marriage, you need eros. otherwise, why get married? (see cs lewis)
vows aren't "one" form, they are THE form and sex is THE matter. all sacraments have form and matter - eucharist form=words of consecration, matter=bread and wine; baptism form=trinitarian formula, matter =water. marriage form = vows, matter=sex.
those saints who lived in continence consummated their marriage first and had children. THEN they abstained.[/quote]

CS Lewis is a Protestant that I don't hold to high stardards sorry and no offense.

I still see you putting the most emphisis on sexual attraction, while I'd rather put emphisis on spiritual attraction equally. Here's what important: Friendships and marriages aren't even remotely on the same playing field spiritually [not even talking physically]. What made me marry my wife wasn't just a physical aspect but primarily the fact that I'd wanted to spend the rest of my life with her, worshiping Jesus Christ.

You shouldn't get married just to have sex and/or just to have children, there's so much more then that. There's a 3rd century Coptic Saint [who's name I can't remember] that was engaged to a man, and he died before the marriage and she chose not to get married again because she felt as if they were married spiritually, despite not having been married legally or had the physical aspect. This details and outlines that it was the spiritual factor, the factor that she wanted to spend the rest of her life with him [God Willing], regardless of the physical aspect [thou I'm sure there was one there]. If the physical is the first aspect on your mind, you need to search deeper. Why is it that pre-arranged marriages were so successful in the older tradition? I know a couple that was pre-arranged, and their families arranged them based upon interests, charectoristics, etc. Their marriage was so successful, despite just meeting each other on their marriage night, because their spiritual connection was much deeper then physical attraction [as that was the last attraction for emphisis to be put upon it]. I'm not saying that physical attraction doesn't matter, just that it's not remotely the main function of marriage. Marriage is about loving each other unconditionally, having the desire to spend your entire lives together in worship to Jesus Christ, the rest is just that... "the rest".

There are those that have a different calling...

Reza

Edited April 21, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[kateri05]

marriage is indeed "about" having children. procreation is the PRIMARY end of the sacrament of marriage. you keep acting as though i am denying the spiritual element of the relationship, which i am not. this is crucial to a successful relationship.

however, you seem to be saying that the physical element of marriage - the good which God created so that we could show forth love with our bodies, image Him and be co-creators with Him - is somehow subordinate to that. that is incorrect.


lol and i'm sorry that cs lewis, a respected theologian by both protestant and catholics, is below your standards. would you like me to cite john paul II on the theology of the body. cuz what, he thinks sex is great : (edit, for those called to marriage of course!)

Edited April 21, 2007 by kateri05