Just a Question

[Edward]

This is an honest question and I mean no offense to anyone but if you moods think it's too much, delete it.

That said , the question is, if a man simply looks upon a woman in lust, he has committed adultery with her in his heart, right?

So...if people who are not gay, sympathize with gays and practice tolerance and acceptance towards them...would that make them gay in their heart?

 

[KevinK]

the question is, if a man simply looks upon a woman in lust, he has committed adultery with her in his heart, right?

Well, technically no, since in adultery at least one of the parties would have to be married (to someone else, obviously). Did you mean to say "fornication"?

 

[Michael74]

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28 KJV

Going by this verse, I would think that one would have to look at a married man lustfully to have committed adultery with him. Practicing tolerance would not fit the verse.

 

[ezra]

This is an honest question and I mean no offense to anyone but if you moods think it's too much, delete it.

That said , the question is, if a man simply looks upon a woman in lust, he has committed adultery with her in his heart, right?

So...if people who are not gay, sympathize with gays and practice tolerance and acceptance towards them...would that make them gay in their heart?

no but i fail to see why someone would agree that its ok..

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I watched a friend as his marriage was tearing him apart until finally he ended it in divorce and got back together with a girl he never got over. I'd say I sympathize with him and felt sorry for him even though I don't agree with how it ended at the end of the marriage and with the other girl.

In a way I think this is a simular attribute to tolerance to gays from Christians. It's probably not being gay at heart. But on one hand it isn't helping them turn from that sin. So it might be like having that sin in our own heart. On the other hand though it is also trying to be a friend in our own imperfections.

 

[Razeontherock]

Well, technically no, since in adultery at least one of the parties would have to be married (to someone else, obviously). Did you mean to say "fornication"?

I think there's a lot of confusion that stems from this verse. In the context of their culture, there was no such thing as a single person, let alone a "singles scene." You got betrothed long before you ever got married. This was due to your parents arranging a partner for you. This concept is entirely foreign to me; I can't even imagine Dad involved in my life in that way or anything related, ever.

So you wouldn't be finding a single, unbetrothed, unattached woman to think her attractive. This is already QUITE different from anything any of us have ever experienced! Jesus' words make a lot more sense in this context, at least to me.

Next up, while I am thoroughly unaccomplished in Greek, I have heard those who can speak it say that "look upon a woman to lust after" isn't what happens when you notice. Even if you find her attractive and look too long. They say some aspect of planning and intent is the meaning here. Even without acting on it. It's entertaining the idea of how to make it possible that's the problem.

I have no idea, and no opinion. What I DO know, is if I had that insight as a young man, I would've been in MUCH better shape! It's easy to really beat yourself up with this passage. Doing that never helped, and only exacerbated the situation.

 

[stovebolts]

This is an honest question and I mean no offense to anyone but if you moods think it's too much, delete it.

That said , the question is, if a man simply looks upon a woman in lust, he has committed adultery with her in his heart, right?

So...if people who are not gay, sympathize with gays and practice tolerance and acceptance towards them...would that make them gay in their heart?

I would say no, it simply makes them both tolerant and sympathetic toward them. Neither are bad things.

When we look at tolerance, it cant be read as enabling. In the same way, when we say we are tolerant, we are not saying we are promoting it.

 

[stovebolts]

I think there's a lot of confusion that stems from this verse. In the context of their culture, there was no such thing as a single person, let alone a "singles scene." You got betrothed long before you ever got married. This was due to your parents arranging a partner for you. This concept is entirely foreign to me; I can't even imagine Dad involved in my life in that way or anything related, ever.

So you wouldn't be finding a single, unbetrothed, unattached woman to think her attractive. This is already QUITE different from anything any of us have ever experienced! Jesus' words make a lot more sense in this context, at least to me.

Next up, while I am thoroughly unaccomplished in Greek, I have heard those who can speak it say that "look upon a woman to lust after" isn't what happens when you notice. Even if you find her attractive and look too long. They say some aspect of planning and intent is the meaning here. Even without acting on it. It's entertaining the idea of how to make it possible that's the problem.

I have no idea, and no opinion. What I DO know, is if I had that insight as a young man, I would've been in MUCH better shape! It's easy to really beat yourself up with this passage. Doing that never helped, and only exacerbated the situation.

We are not held responsible for the thoughts that pop into our heads unannounced. However, we are held accountable for what we do with them. James writes about this, as well as the Hebrew writer.

 

[Razeontherock]

We are not held responsible for the thoughts that pop into our heads unannounced. However, we are held accountable for what we do with them. James writes about this, as well as the Hebrew writer.

Yes! We are in agreement. "You can't stop a bird from flying over your head, but you don't have to let it build a nest in your hair"

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I would say no, it simply makes them both tolerant and sympathetic toward them. Neither are bad things.

When we look at tolerance, it cant be read as enabling. In the same way, when we say we are tolerant, we are not saying we are promoting it.

Some do though. As a measure of tolerance either enable or promote. It's not an easy line to see always. And many who don't know where to draw the line either choose a side to promote or stand against, or step away from the situation entirely and do nothing. It's sad that we can be split and divided like this so much.

But your right, tolerance isn't the same as promoting it. In any struggle with sin or life being kind and tolerant of our weaknesses is a sign of real kindness, recognized by mostly everyone.

 

[Razeontherock]

I would say no, it simply makes them both tolerant and sympathetic toward them. Neither are bad things.

When we look at tolerance, it cant be read as enabling. In the same way, when we say we are tolerant, we are not saying we are promoting it.

This certainly treads on some tricky ground, that has history of going south in all corners of the interwebz. Still, it's a vital discussion to have, and it can be done productively.

"Tolerance" is an over used buzzword that has, for all intents and purposes, become meaningless in our society today.

That's ok because the standard we're held to isn't tolerance, it's LOVE! Not only are we "supposed to" love gay people, it should come naturally to us. Like a river of refreshing and life-giving water, rising up from our innermost being, that can NOT be denied, stopped, or even slowed down.

While militant sinners of every stripe, in the name of "tolerance," engage in behavior so heinous it makes folks of their own group ashamed, it sets the perfect backdrop for "real Christians" (TM) to ... be the city set on a hill, letting our works SO shine that the difference will both be obvious, and only attributable to the Glory of God.

Even militant atheists should be able to see the difference. "Because you tolerate one small sub-section of your society, all men shall know you are my Disciples." That is NOT what Jesus said, lol

 

[stovebolts]

Yes! We are in agreement. "You can't stop a bird from flying over your head, but you don't have to let it build a nest in your hair"

Ohhhh I like that!

 

[stovebolts]

Some do though. As a measure of tolerance either enable or promote. It's not an easy line to see always. And many who don't know where to draw the line either choose a side to promote or stand against, or step away from the situation entirely and do nothing. It's sad that we can be split and divided like this so much.

But your right, tolerance isn't the same as promoting it. In any struggle with sin or life being kind and tolerant of our weaknesses is a sign of real kindness, recognized by mostly everyone.

Yeah, it is a line that seems to move depending on ones understanding and growth and it has really caused a riff in the Christian community. :-(

 

[stovebolts]

This certainly treads on some tricky ground, that has history of going south in all corners of the interwebz. Still, it's a vital discussion to have, and it can be done productively.

"Tolerance" is an over used buzzword that has, for all intents and purposes, become meaningless in our society today.

That's ok because the standard we're held to isn't tolerance, it's LOVE! Not only are we "supposed to" love gay people, it should come naturally to us. Like a river of refreshing and life-giving water, rising up from our innermost being, that can NOT be denied, stopped, or even slowed down.

While militant sinners of every stripe, in the name of "tolerance," engage in behavior so heinous it makes folks of their own group ashamed, it sets the perfect backdrop for "real Christians" (TM) to ... be the city set on a hill, letting our works SO shine that the difference will both be obvious, and only attributable to the Glory of God.

Even militant atheists should be able to see the difference. "Because you tolerate one small sub-section of your society, all men shall know you are my Disciples." That is NOT what Jesus said, lol

Well said and spot on imho. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Edward]

Well, technically no, since in adultery at least one of the parties would have to be married (to someone else, obviously). Did you mean to say "fornication"?

No, I meant it how I said it. The scripture's talking about adultery or fornication is the tone I hear, what's in the heart and that's enough for guilt.

So I wondered if it may work the same way with lgbt friendly people. Would God consider them, gay in their heart? God looks at the heart.

 

[Edward]

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28 KJV

Going by this verse, I would think that one would have to look at a married man lustfully to have committed adultery with him. Practicing tolerance would not fit the verse.

Im not so sure about that! If a man didn't't have to physically interact with a woman to be guilty of same...then maybe (in keeping the same tone of the verse) men or women who practice tolerance or diversity or whatever. ..are lgbt in their heart too, to God? Maybe even never have had a gay-lesbian experience. ..! ?
Wasn't't Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for thrypublic acceptance of it as much as for the sinners themselves?

 

[Edward]

I watched a friend as his marriage was tearing him apart until finally he ended it in divorce and got back together with a girl he never got over. I'd say I sympathize with him and felt sorry for him even though I don't agree with how it ended at the end of the marriage and with the other girl.

In a way I think this is a simular attribute to tolerance to gays from Christians. It's probably not being gay at heart. But on one hand it isn't helping them turn from that sin. So it might be like having that sin in our own heart. On the other hand though it is also trying to be a friend in our own imperfections.

That's a good answer!

 

[Edward]

I would say no, it simply makes them both tolerant and sympathetic toward them. Neither are bad things.

When we look at tolerance, it cant be read as enabling. In the same way, when we say we are tolerant, we are not saying we are promoting it.

I fully understand that and that is the reasonable logical and carnal way to think, yes?

But when I was reading that passage, I thought about the sympathizers and applied the same scriptural logic and figured God probably sees sympathizers as sodomites too...I'm not positive, but it kinda makes sense. Doesn't it?

 

[Razeontherock]

I can see the sense of what you're saying, but the difference is the "tolerant" don't have the desire.

I think it's better to put this under the category of take a stand against sin, and if we see the danger but do not warn them, their blood is on our hands.

That should deal with your concern squarely, no? Then, in that context, we follow up not by shunning them, but by actually loving them. That would NOT be enabling. Not too many gays would be accepting of our company then though, but that's on them. They'll likely revile us, and claim it was us exhibiting intolerant, unloving behavior. So it's a mess!

What I've seen in this part of the world is the gay community got it's special rights, and then completely disappeared. It's like they all went back in the closet. I state this only because I wonder if this area is unusual, or what's going on.

 

[Edward]

We are not held responsible for the thoughts that pop into our heads unannounced. However, we are held accountable for what we do with them. James writes about this, as well as the Hebrew writer.

This is correct.