tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post9147928394129465665..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The NudeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60398170517525686332008-10-13T10:40:00.000-04:002008-10-13T10:40:00.000-04:00"But it has nothing to do with the definition of l...<I>"But it has nothing to do with the definition of lust!"</I><BR/><BR/>Of course it does. You just choose not to understand.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18014637652470123562008-10-13T01:45:00.000-04:002008-10-13T01:45:00.000-04:00"There are more than one Greek translation of the ..."There are more than one Greek translation of the OT."<BR/><BR/>I think everyone knows that "the" Greek OT is the Septuagint.<BR/><BR/>"However, since it's a translation and not the original language it's a weak argument anyway. "<BR/><BR/>When the issue is the meaning of a an NT Greek word, there is nothing weak about it. Secular works would be informative as well. It doesn't have to be the bible to inform about word meaning. But the Greek OT is especially persuasive because it sets the background for the NT writers.<BR/><BR/>"I did substantiate it: "...the sexual relationship is given as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church." This is from Eph 5."<BR/><BR/>But Eph 5 never mentions the word in question. If you want to make a meaningful argument, you would have to either quote something that uses that word, or else show why the verse has anything to do with the concept (lust) under discussion. Since you have done neither, you have done nothing. The sexual relationship is a picture of Christ and his church - let's say we accept your summary - so what? What has it got to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing, or at least nothing that you have attempted to establish.<BR/><BR/>"My original comment was meant to redirect your understanding of ownership to God."<BR/><BR/>Redirect your understanding of ownership to God? What does that mean? Why do you insist in talking in riddles?<BR/><BR/>"Doing so, changes the logical dynamics of your assertion, which sounds remarkably like morality derived from natural law rather than divine revelation."<BR/><BR/>I discuss the meaning of a Greek word as used in scripture, and you say it sounds like natural law. The nonsense you come out with convinces me even more you have nothing to say.<BR/><BR/>"I have a referenced understanding of something you don't. "<BR/><BR/>Yes, something or other from secular philosophy. Which sounds remarkably like morality derived from natural law rather than divine revelation. <BR/><BR/>"That's a pretty simple and basic argument actually. "<BR/><BR/>But it has nothing to do with the definition of lust! The problem seems to be that I am giving you too much credibility in assuming that something in what you say is actually on topic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393543921643066019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28432623823411292502008-10-10T01:47:00.000-04:002008-10-10T01:47:00.000-04:00"Its never pointless to bring up the Septuagint wh...<I>"Its never pointless to bring up the Septuagint when the issue is the meaning of a Greek word."</I><BR/><BR/>You didn't bring up the Septuagint until now. There are more than one Greek translation of the OT. Therefore, it helps to state "Septuagint" if that's what you are talking about. However, since it's a translation and not the original language it's a weak argument anyway. It's better to stick with the original languages (and the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts are similar enough generally to go with either one).<BR/><BR/>Here's another example of a lack of clarity:<BR/><BR/><I>"What I don't make a distinction between is the meaning of the same Greek word used in various contexts. </I><B>Lust and donkeys have self-evident differences.</B><I> If you want to make a special plea that </I><B>the same Greek word has different meanings in different contexts,</B><I> that is for you to substantiate."</I><BR/><BR/>I did substantiate it: "...the sexual relationship is given as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church." This is from Eph 5. If you are going to make an equivocal assertion, as I emphasized in the quote above, you would need to substantiate it as well. Ah, but of course you don't have to because I already have.<BR/><BR/>As for the point of your original comment, I haven't even started to pick on the most glaring assertion you make, although you claim to have made a "conclusion". This is primarily because I agree in part with you. My original comment was meant to redirect your understanding of ownership ("when the desire is accompanied by an unhealthy desire to deprive the original owner of the thing in question") to God. Doing so, changes the logical dynamics of your assertion, which sounds remarkably like morality derived from natural law rather than divine revelation. It certainly doesn't follow from your observation about Greek usage in the Septuagint.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"So I need to understand secular philosophy before you can form a coherent argument that I can understand? No I don't have a grounding in secular philosophy, so any talk about existentialism, substance, means nothing to me."</I><BR/><BR/><I>Whatever that means. Is this where I go take a secular humanist philosophy course?</I><BR/><BR/>This is clearly the problem. I have a referenced understanding of something you don't. No, you don't need to take a course in "secular humanist philosophy." You could teach yourself. In part, that's what I've done. I also took philosophy when I attended Columbia Bible College. I had a couple of semesters of western philosophy with the twist that it was analyzed through orthodox Christian presuppositions. It's helpful information and provides a broad basis for analyzing and categorizing all kinds of information.<BR/><BR/>The fact is, you aren't fully aware of your own presuppositions and it's hindering your capacity to understand my arguments:<BR/><BR/><I>"I could accept your summary of the situation about "polluted minds" word for word, but you still won't tell us what it has got to do with anything. I guess their minds were polluted when they talked to each other, but that didn't make talking to each other something to be avoided. So how does this relate to the present topic? We're not told."</I><BR/><BR/><I>"Where's the argument? I've yet to see an actual argument presented.</I><BR/><BR/>I wrote: "What did they know that they didn't know previously, but that now they had sinned and sin polluted their thinking?" The only thing that changed was sin entered the world and the realization of nakedness followed. That's a pretty simple and basic argument actually. For example, if you have two electrical switches on the wall, you toggle one of them and the overhead light immediately comes on, then you can induce with an exceptionally high likelihood that that the switch you threw turned the light on. You can deduce that the light is on because the switch is up. In the case of Adam and Eve, one can deduce based on the account of the fall that "nakedness" is the result of sin.<BR/><BR/>So, I've already explained it to you, but as I said the attempt was probably futile... and I was right. What seems obvious to me is clearly not obvious to you and I'm tired of trying.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48084734328600791782008-10-09T23:13:00.000-04:002008-10-09T23:13:00.000-04:00"have an understanding of basic philosophy"So I ne..."have an understanding of basic philosophy"<BR/><BR/>So I need to understand secular philosophy before you can form a coherent argument that I can understand? No I don't have a grounding in secular philosophy, so any talk about existentialism, substance, means nothing to me.<BR/><BR/>"You don't make a distinction between lust and wanting to buy a donkey. I do."<BR/><BR/>No, wrong. What I don't make a distinction between is the meaning of the same Greek word used in various contexts. Lust and donkeys have self-evident differences. If you want to make a special plea that the same Greek word has different meanings in different contexts, that is for you to substantiate. You're now trying to say that I don't distinguish between red cars and red apples because I claim that red means the same thing in both cases. I can claim that red means red without claiming that cars are apples.<BR/><BR/>"What point did you intend to make by this?"<BR/><BR/>You started asking me what distinction I wanted to make, when I wasn't making a distinction. Why do you ask me what point I wanted to make when I answer your question? The point was to respond to your question.<BR/><BR/>"However, it's pointless to bring up the Septuagint if you can use either the original Hebrew in the OT or the Greek in the NT to make the same point."<BR/><BR/>Its never pointless to bring up the Septuagint when the issue is the meaning of a Greek word.<BR/><BR/>Since the Hebrew is typically consistently translated "covet" rather than "lust", whereas the Greek is typically translated inconsistently, and since the parallel is most clearly seen in the 10 commandments, and since the topic as expressed in English is expressed as "lust" rather than "coveting", and since most people try to form their opinion about this from the NT's teaching, it seems more informative to concentrate on the Greek word, yet using the Septuagint to inform us of its meaning. That's not to say we couldn't discuss the Hebrew, but I was discussing the Greek. Fair enough?<BR/><BR/>"This is like saying, "I'm not sure how a pattern of driving badly has anything to do with traffic laws." <BR/><BR/>No, the issue is not whether driving badly is to do with the traffic laws, the issue is whether a particular way of driving is driving badly. See how you've completely confused things by starting off by assuming what you need to prove? I asked a question about why we should consider a particular way of driving as bad, and you respond by lecturing about how driving badly is against the law. This informs nobody by stating the obvious.<BR/><BR/>"Christ tells us that if we even lust after someone else, it's as good as committing adultery."<BR/><BR/>And the question I posed is about the meaning of the Greek word for lust. Quoting a verse and assuming your own interpretation does not inform anyone.<BR/><BR/>"My argument is that the issue is addressed clearly in the Bible even from the beginning."<BR/><BR/>Where's the argument? I've yet to see an actual argument presented.<BR/><BR/>"However, your comment here demonstrates that you can appeal to the concept of the primacy of essence over existence even though you don't seem to have had the philosophical reference for it."<BR/><BR/>Whatever that means. Is this where I go take a secular humanist philosophy course?<BR/><BR/>"The issue wasn't nakedness, but the sin that now polluted the minds of Adam and Eve."<BR/><BR/>I could accept your summary of the situation about "polluted minds" word for word, but you still won't tell us what it has got to do with anything. I guess their minds were polluted when they talked to each other, but that didn't make talking to each other something to be avoided. So how does this relate to the present topic? We're not told.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393543921643066019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57953443021513425782008-10-08T23:13:00.000-04:002008-10-08T23:13:00.000-04:00Ok, Jenny,You don't have the logical marbles to ge...Ok, Jenny,<BR/>You don't have the logical marbles to get it by this point, but I'll offer one last (probably) futile attempt.<BR/><BR/>Starting with your last comment:<BR/><BR/><I>"Is this the assertion you refer to? How am I supposed to know if 'It's a philosophical assertion' is a reference to the previous paragraph you have just referred to, or the following sentence?"</I><BR/><BR/>If you pay attention to the context of my comments and have an understanding of basic philosophy, you should have been able to observe that my assertion, "Spiritual intent informs meaning in the material universe, not the other way around," was counter to existentialism. The minds of most people in western culture have been polluted by this philosophy. Despite the fact that the first squeaks of existentialism were theologically oriented (Kierkegaard and later Barth), Nietzsche, notably, took it to it's logical conclusion and developed an explicitly atheistic existentialism that spread from Europe to the Americas and served to fuel more recent philosophies like naturalism, humanism, modernism and postmodernism. It has also served apostate Christian theologians since then in their attempts to deny the authority of God's revelation in scripture at different levels.<BR/><BR/>The primacy of "essence" or "substance" as manifested in existence is self evident (like Newton's three laws of physics, which cannot be theorized, only observed), but this fact is clouded by clever yet fallacious arguments to the contrary. Therefore, I make the assertion as a matter of disclosing my presuppositions to any thoughtful person so we can get on with the matter of meaningful debate rather than talk in circles. Such is supposed to help avoid writing lengthy comments like the one I'm making now since I presume that you are intelligent enough to follow my argument and don't need such explanation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, to your lack of clarity:<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"I didn't mention a distinction, you seem to want to argue for some distinction."</I><BR/><BR/>Of course. You're stating the obvious. You don't make a distinction between lust and wanting to buy a donkey. I do. That would be the initial point of contention between us. What point did you intend to make by this?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"I'm not sure how 'Greek OT' is ambiguous."</I><BR/><BR/>Jenny, the OT (Old Testament) was written in Hebrew with a section in Aramaic, not Greek. In the Hebrew, the words you referenced are the same. In the Greek <B>NT</B> (New Testament) the words for "lust" and "covet" are the same. I speculated that perhaps you were referring to the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the OT. However, it's pointless to bring up the Septuagint if you can use either the original Hebrew in the OT or the Greek in the NT to make the same point.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"I'm not sure how 'normalizing of sinful patterns' is relevant, when the issue is what things are sinful."</I><BR/><BR/>This is like saying, "I'm not sure how a pattern of driving badly has anything to do with traffic laws." I suppose traffic laws and driving badly are both irrelevant when there's no one else on the road. However, there's a principle of dealing rationally with others. All the law and the prophets hinge on two great commandments: Love God and love each other. Sin is all about relationships. If you normalize sin in your life, you degrade your relationship with God and with other people.<BR/><BR/>Inasmuch as we are sinners, we are given to lust. Christ tells us that if we even lust after someone else, it's as good as committing adultery. Men especially are tempted to adultery through the eyes. So, viewing pornography is committing adultery. otherwise, why do we have a very profitable industry surrounding the dissemination of it? It would only be looking at something we have no compulsion to see. Why would anyone pay money for that?<BR/><BR/>My argument is that the issue is addressed clearly in the Bible even from the beginning.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"I'm not sure what you mean that the nakedness was 'perpetuating a sinful pattern'. Many think it is a reflection of the damaged relationship with god but is not due to the nakedness as such (since they were naked before with no sin) nor due to any issue between Adam and eve (they hid their nakedness from god, not each other). How any of this is relevant anyway, I don't see."</I><BR/><BR/>You obviously missed my entire argument. However, your comment here demonstrates that you can appeal to the concept of the primacy of essence over existence even though you don't seem to have had the philosophical reference for it.<BR/><BR/>The issue wasn't nakedness, but the sin that now polluted the minds of Adam and Eve. This made the nakedness something that needed to be cloaked, so that the sin was abated and some semblance of relationship could be restored. This, by the way, is the gospel. In Exodus 20, just after receiving the Decalogue, the Israelites begged Moses to tell God not to talk to them because they were afraid of Him. And rightly so: if God were to have revealed Himself to them completely, they would be destroyed. However, in Psalm 90 the Psalmist recognizes God as his shelter and defender. We draw night to God and He protects us. How are the two concepts possible? For us to approach God as sinners, we would be destroyed. However, we are cloaked in the righteousness of Christ. The Israelites didn't realize this and were afraid, but Moses did and could approach God. Even then, God cloaked Himself to prevent His holiness from causing Moses' destruction. So there's a sense of each being cloaked to facilitate a functional relationship. This is what happened when Adam and Eve knew the necessity of covering themselves even before each other for much of the time.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"That all our relationships are damaged in some way, if true how is that pertinent to the topic at hand?"</I><BR/><BR/>This should be obvious given my previous responses. Should I repeat myself?Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7242384585518323922008-10-08T18:41:00.000-04:002008-10-08T18:41:00.000-04:00Case in Point:"My last sentence should have been a...Case in Point:<BR/><BR/>"My last sentence should have been a separate paragraph. It's a philosophical assertion that I believe is presuppositional to an understanding of the gospel. It's not evidence per se that you need in order to understand the destructiveness of viewing pornography, but an understanding of the principle of normalization to the human psyche by regular exposure to any stimulus."<BR/><BR/>Is this the assertion you refer to? How am I supposed to know if "It's a philosophical assertion" is a reference to the previous paragraph you have just referred to, or the following sentence?<BR/><BR/>If it's the former: "His glory or accurate revelation is at stake", what has it got to do with the price of fish?<BR/><BR/>If it's the latter: "an understanding of the principle of normalization to the human psyche by regular exposure to any stimulus" doesn't show that the stimulus we are talking about is negative or positive, which is the issue before us.<BR/><BR/>How have you shed any light?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393543921643066019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3359558546820787962008-10-07T23:41:00.000-04:002008-10-07T23:41:00.000-04:00Case in point: It was a presuppositional statement...Case in point: It was a presuppositional statement for the purpose of providing you the clarity of a foundation for my argumentation so you wouldn't have to ascertain it on your own, which is what I had to do with your argument. This is why I correctly identified it as an assertion. As it is, it's an assertion that is what is otherwise commonly referred to as "self-evident".Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18702808914332413732008-10-07T23:19:00.000-04:002008-10-07T23:19:00.000-04:00An assertion does not rise to the level of being a...An assertion does not rise to the level of being argumentation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393543921643066019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22882188534331614702008-10-05T22:38:00.000-04:002008-10-05T22:38:00.000-04:00Jenny,Your lack of clarity is astonishing and it's...Jenny,<BR/>Your lack of clarity is astonishing and it's fruitless to argue with you if you can't follow a simple line of argumentation.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19578040427488172912008-10-05T22:11:00.000-04:002008-10-05T22:11:00.000-04:00I didn't mention a distinction, you seem to want t...I didn't mention a distinction, you seem to want to argue for some distinction.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how "Greek OT" is ambiguous.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how "normalizing of sinful patterns" is relevant, when the issue is what things are sinful.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you mean that the nakedness was "perpetuating a sinful pattern". Many think it is a reflection of the damaged relationship with god but is not due to the nakedness as such (since they were naked before with no sin) nor due to any issue between Adam and eve (they hid their nakedness from god, not each other). How any of this is relevant anyway, I don't see.<BR/><BR/>That all our relationships are damaged in some way, if true how is that pertinent to the topic at hand?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393543921643066019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4423900543925774292008-10-04T10:51:00.000-04:002008-10-04T10:51:00.000-04:00Jenny,Forgive me. I assumed that when you said, "T...Jenny,<BR/>Forgive me. I assumed that when you said, <I>"The word translated lust is used in the Greek OT to translate coveting your neighbor's wife, but also to covet your neighbor's house or ox or donkey,"</I> that you meant to draw a parallel rather than a distinction in you following argument. Otherwise, why mention it. BTW, did you mean Greek usage in the Septuagint or the NT? Or did you mean Hebrew? Either way actually doesn't really matter.<BR/><BR/>The normalization I refer to is the normalization of sinful patterns.<BR/><BR/>With regard to Adam and Eve, I believe you've missed my argument altogether. You need to understand that this was moment of the original sin. The difference before and after was characterized by the introduction of sin. The immediate observation both Adam and Eve made was that they were naked. The only conclusion one could reach is that their "makedness" was immediately recognized as a perpetuation of the sin. It's that simple.<BR/><BR/>Husband and wife should desire each other. But the world on this side of the fall is corrupted. Even the good things we do are polluted with evil to some measure. We have little if any idea what perfect desire is. Adam and Eve once knew and after the fall, they couldn't know perfect desire without sin. Neither can we - not until we are raised incorruptible. Then there will be no marriage, but we will be able to know each other more intimately than even the closest friends or married couples we know here.<BR/><BR/>That's why pornography is so bad. It normalizes this pattern of sin in the minds of those who view it and the result is a degradation of relationships. In a society where pornography is common, this contributes to a breakdown of relationships. But, as Steve points out in the article and as I made reference to in my anti-existential comment, the extent of this is contingent on other spiritual and material factors.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58943325063807394442008-10-04T09:35:00.000-04:002008-10-04T09:35:00.000-04:00well, of course I never said that sexual relations...well, of course I never said that sexual relationships and owning things don't differ. Clearly they do. However, I don't see how this has much relevance to what I said. I could for example apply the word "selfish" to one's use of resources and one's behavior in relationships without assuming relatio nships and resources are the same.. The word would mean the same in both cases, even though the manifestation of details is different. Without some other argument, I want to be looking to see what is common between all uses of this Greek word. Stating the obvious that property and relationships are different doesn't seem to be a counter argument.<BR/><BR/>Concerning "normalisation to the human psyche", assuming I understand you correctly, why would sex as being normal be a bad thing for the psyche? As far as I see it is normal, and the sooner the psyche realizes this the better.<BR/><BR/>Concerning Adam, how is " lust" as you describe of for eve's body, a sin? You don't want husbands desiring their wive's bodies? Sounds odd to me. And why would Adam projecting the same back to himself be a concern? Husbands like their wives to desire their bodies. When they don't, THEN they usually get worried. <BR/><BR/>So why did they clothe themseves? Well I don't really claim to know. But it never says to hide from each other. What it does say is he tried to hide from god because of his nakedness. I highly doubt they never saw each other naked again. Do you advocate spouses hide from each other?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393543921643066019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40733904412586703392008-10-04T00:45:00.000-04:002008-10-04T00:45:00.000-04:00Jenny,I apologize for being unclear.You drew a par...Jenny,<BR/>I apologize for being unclear.<BR/><BR/>You drew a parallel between "lust" and "covet" through speculating the base meaning of the Greek word translated both ways. I like to do this myself, but there is scriptural evidence that the same word actually has different enough meanings in different contexts because scripture treats the contexts differently. The context of proprietary stewardship ("owning" something) doesn't reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church. The context of marriage (where we would find God's ideal sexual relationship) does. In both God is the ultimate proprietor, but in a sexual relationship, His glory or accurate revelation is at stake.<BR/><BR/>My last sentence should have been a separate paragraph. It's a philosophical assertion that I believe is presuppositional to an understanding of the gospel. It's not evidence per se that you need in order to understand the destructiveness of viewing pornography, but an understanding of the principle of normalization to the human psyche by regular exposure to any stimulus. The failure to understand this principle is ironically a trait of the normalization of exposure to existentialism. So I countered with the anti-existentialist statement. That's all.<BR/><BR/>As for your final question, what do you presume it means that they realized they were naked? This was the result of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What did they know that they didn't know previously, but that now they had sinned and sin polluted their thinking? How can you understand the sin of another if you yourself know no sin? There is a tendency to see the sin in others that we are wont to commit. So Adam knew lust in himself as he viewed Eve's naked body - a distortion of a perfect desire for her that he had mere moments earlier. Now that he had this sin, he projected it on her and understood her to view him in this same way. It's a simple principle easily observable in human behavior now and easily explains what "naked" means in the context of Adam and Eve.<BR/><BR/>I would add the additional observation, which I assumed any readers of my comment would conclude from my comment, that viewing pornography is the perversion of this principle where we would remove the fig leaf from another so the sinful distortion of the pre-fall perfect desire would be satiated without exposing oneself to the same sinful scrutiny of someone else.<BR/><BR/>I hope that clears things up for you.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72255425585265609222008-10-03T23:27:00.000-04:002008-10-03T23:27:00.000-04:00Jim, you lost me totally on the first paragraph. O...Jim, you lost me totally on the first paragraph. On the 2nd, what verse says Adam was looking at eve with impure motives? And what possible motive ( chapter & verse please ) could Adam have possibly had that clothes would help with?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393543921643066019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20099206402283101542008-09-30T10:53:00.000-04:002008-09-30T10:53:00.000-04:00Jenny,Sexual relationships differ from proprietary...Jenny,<BR/>Sexual relationships differ from proprietary stewardship in that the sexual relationship is given as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church. As such, our lives are not ours to do with as we please. Neither are our sexual relationships properly open to mere whim of usage, but confined to monogamous commitment. Therefore, if I follow your logic, the one being deprived through lust is not any human, but the glory of God Himself. Spiritual intent informs meaning in the material universe, not the other way around.<BR/><BR/>Steve,<BR/>I would add this observation:<BR/><BR/>What did it mean when Adam and Eve realized that they were naked? I can't imagine what Eden would be like without clothes. Even if I'm alone and there's no one to see me, I'm inclined to suit up to protect tender parts of my body from the environment: the bony back of a horse should I ride, the bark of a tree should I climb, the hardness of cold rock or sharpness of fallen twigs should I sit, etc. However, Adam and Eve's revelation was that they realized their own propensity to look lustfully and critically on the other with the realization that the other was doing the same. How could this be since they were "married"? Lust involves impure motives. They now realized each other's impure motives and sought to protect themselves from those motives. This protection was a severe degradation of the perfect intimacy in the perfect relationship they once knew. Therein is nature of lust. It is inescapable in this fallen world.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41629035247753428062008-09-30T00:53:00.000-04:002008-09-30T00:53:00.000-04:00How do we know that lust, as a concept popularly u...How do we know that lust, as a concept popularly understood by modern Christians, is even anything like that which is condemned in the bible?<BR/><BR/>The word translated lust is used in the Greek OT to translate coveting your neighbor's wife, but also to covet your neighbor's house or ox or donkey.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, it would be presumably okay to go to the market, take a liking to a donkey, and purchase it. It would presumably also be okay to go to the neighbor's house, enjoy his house, and then go build yourself a similar one.<BR/><BR/>The only conclusion I've been able to come to is that bad lust, or coveting (since they seem to be the same word), is when the desire is accompanied by an unhealthy desire to deprive the original owner of the thing in question, or also perhaps, if it creates an unhealthy disatisfaction with our current lot in life. But I've yet to see any real evidence that it has anything to do with viewing sexually arousing material. But if someone wants to put forward a case....Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393543921643066019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48863210360398698142008-09-26T20:35:00.000-04:002008-09-26T20:35:00.000-04:00I believe Lewis Grizzard once said that there is, ...I believe Lewis Grizzard once said that there is, in the South, a difference between being naked (nude) and being nekkid. Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and you're up to something.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com