True meaning of the words "Lust" and "Adultery" and the misinformation spread by the Church.

I'd like to start this off by saying that I'm a "Christian" in that I have a personal relationship with Christ and believe that the Bible, in its original translation, is the true inspired word of God. I also believe that institutionalized religion is the cause of almost every single conflict in history and is far too often used as a platform of abuse and power.

My entire life I have always been told that I have committed "Adultery" if I've "looked on a woman in lust." For 27 years I took that as irrefutable truth and just accepted that that was what the Bible said. I always tore myself down and hated myself for the guilt that I felt because I just couldn't stop finding attractive women sexually pleasing to see. It seeped into every single facet of my life and made me an intensely bitter person.

From the many talks that I've had with other Christian men throughout my life about this topic, this seems to be a universally accepted truth.

The verse that everyone cites when talking about "Lust" and "Adultery" is Matthew 5:28: "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

That seems pretty straight forward, right? I thought so too. However, what if it's not as simple as that? After several long nights talking about this with my wife we decided to do some digging to see what Jesus was really saying during his Sermon on the Mount.

It would seem that Jesus very clearly told those listening to his sermon that to look at a woman and find her sexually pleasing to the eyes and mind was a grievous sin. The Christian church at large teaches that to do so was committing "Adultery" which is described by them as basically any sexual desire or thought outside of marriage (Anyone other than your wife). I always found this be an unusually blanketed idea but, until now, never really dug into it.

Upon further investigation, it turns out that both the words "Lust" and "Adultery" are actually very, very specific in their meaning. The word "Lust" has its roots in the Hebrew word "Hamad", which much more specifically means to "Strongly desire, to Covet" and the Greek word "Epithymeo" which translates directly to "a Focused/Intense Passionate Desire."

Now, coveting is quite different than what modern Christian leaders would have you believe Lust means and there are many articles and papers trying to discredit this idea. The word "Covet" means "to yearn to posses." So in essence, Jesus wasn't telling people that it was wrong to look upon a woman and find her image pleasing, sexually or otherwise. No, he was saying that to look on her and think to yourself "How can I make her mine?" was sinful.

To further explain the meaning of Matthew 5:28, we go into the word Adultery. The meaning of the word Adultery as found in the Merriam Webster dictionary is "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse." While this is not far from what the modern church would have you believe, they stretch the meaning of this verse and of the word. The modern church would have you believe that the word "Adultery" means any sexual thought about any woman, married or otherwise, outside of marriage. As we've seen, that is not at all what the word means.

Essentially, during his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was saying that to look on a married woman and think to yourself "How can I have her? How can I make her mine?" was as if you had just gone and done it anyway. I would go so far as to say that it is not even wrong to find the image of a married woman sexually pleasing if you're not coveting to have her as your own. (Whether or not that goes over well with her husband is a different story entirely)

With this revelation the entire reasoning behind the modern Church condemning finding women sexually pleasing, to the eyes or mind, is completely dismantled.

I've written this in the hopes that anyone else struggling with the guilt that I did for so long will be encouraged in learning that Jesus never condemned men for looking on a woman and finding her sexually pleasing to the eyes and mind and that doing so is simply another natural part of being human.

a reply to: GlassToTheArson

Yeah I don't know if you can call that a true 'dismantle.'

I just always thought it meant like, "Hey, that woman is more than just a piece of tail. Treat her with respect because she's a person with feelings."

(I'm a male, so taking the male perspective here.)

Buy hey, what the hell do I know about it! Lust on.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Maybe "dismantle" was a bit...excited lol

I would hope that that sentiment would be one held by all men, but you and I both know that, unfortunately, that's not the case

a reply to: GlassToTheArson

Next, ask yourself why. Ask yourself "why would the church evolve this meaning into an unavoidable sin"? Then ask yourself what sort of power could a large theocratic ideology gain over making every person commit one sin or another, no matter what.

Then look at how much revenue the Abrahamic religions generate now, through either terrorism or moral extortion.

Then look at all the other sins you find in the bible that you may be judging others on and ask yourself how badly those might have been interpreted for the same reason they positioned "lust" the way they did.

a reply to: Abysha

I think, as you allude, that it could have had to do with, not only money, but possibly also outright control of the people underneath them.

I think that many churches now continue the tradition believing that they're doing the right thing but I think that the beliefs here have nefarious beginnings.

a reply to: GlassToTheArson

So, I can't help but to ask what languages you read and write. Only because you mention that you believe in the bible, specifically in "in its original translation." You go on to then quite bible verses in English with English dictionary definitions of the word. Those certainly aren't 'original translations.' Do you read Hebrew? Do you read the form of Greek that the new testament was written in originally? I'm just curious how you would know the 'original translations' if you don't know those languages. There are without a doubt subtleties that come up in translations into English and that's why there are different versions of English bibles.

a reply to: GlassToTheArson

If you see an orange, you're automatically going to think of something about it, and you can't stop that, but you can change what that something is that you automatically think. i.e. Don't try to stop thinking thoughts - try to change the thoughts you think.

Another tip that works is to remind yourself that you are deeply in love with your wife (you are infatuated with her). When you are in love (infatuated) with someone, then you will only have eyes for them. (It's okay to lust after your own wife. Proverbs 5:18-19)

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: GlassToTheArson

If you see an orange, you're automatically going to think of something about it, and you can't stop that, but you can change what that something is that you automatically think. i.e. Don't try to stop thinking thoughts - try to change the thoughts you think.

Another tip that works is to remind yourself that you are deeply in love with your wife (you are infatuated with her). When you are in love (infatuated) with someone, then you will only have eyes for them. (It's okay to lust after your own wife. Proverbs 5:18-19)

So to keep from sinning, you have to constantly train your brain to think unnatural thoughts about something? If I see an attractive man, I have natural thoughts. To think "I'd really enjoy shaking his hand and baking his wife a pie" is unnatural. Why can't I think the natural thought (I wanna touch him) without it being a "sin"?

Isn't it kind of weird that your bible constantly tells you to do what is unnatural (kill unbelievers, etc) while also telling you not to do what is natural (express or think love)?

a reply to: GlassToTheArson

I also believe that institutionalized religion is the cause of almost every single conflict in history and is far too often used as a platform of abuse and power.

Agreed. S&F for putting your intimate thoughts and details 'out there', it's brave.

I find it so sad that something that should make one happy (a relationship with God or Jesus or another deity) seems so controlling and stifling and doesn't seem (to me) to permit one to enjoy life. Well, I suppose one can enjoy life as long as it fits within the parameters set out by ??

I think it's tragic, the guilt, that people feel for thoughts alone of where their mind goes. I think it's a shame that hundreds and thousands of years ago, it was decided what marriage should be (stereotypically and the rules to follow) and folks are still being made to conform or feel guilty if they can't live up to that 'standard'.

I'll try to make this example clear:
Where I work, there are folks who require to be bathed by staff. Some of these folks experience very little human touch. During the bathing process some folks (both men and women) can become aroused. With the men, it is more obvious...obviously.
It never ceases to amaze me at the staff who are offended, shocked or appalled by the normal physical reaction (IMO) to the external stimulus. Perhaps the person in the bath finds the staff attractive and they are in an intimate setting and the caressing of the skin while being bathed and just touched can evoke a pleasurable feeling. Most religions where I live would say that's a sin. Can you imagine a person being condemned to a hell for that?

Anyway, It saddens me that folks are walking through life carrying guilt about their thoughts. About liking the way someone else looks or fantasizing in some way. In my beliefs, the sex act (be it real or imagined) with another person doesn't constitute a 'sin' (to use their word) or a breach of contract but, falling in love with someone else does.

I am so glad that you've shed your guilt away and hope that you can begin to enjoy all aspects of this beautiful life we are given. Also, bravo to you and your wife for being able to discuss these things openly!

P.S. I don't know about the translations, specifically so, I am taking them (yours) at face value.

"The verse that everyone cites when talking about "Lust" and "Adultery" is Matthew 5:28: "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."


Is that allegory or future tense ? ie. the outcome if this 'looketh' is persued. Sacred poop, everywhere you look there are favorable handsome woman...
This poses a problem, how can there be success complying with this commandment. NKJ's pretty close, but an understanding of outside sources in the form of other religious writing. OT, NT, Torra, Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and Apocrypha writings and more. In the mix there still exist the original un basterdized history and scriptures. One can gleen the truth with some effort.

Sin is unavoidable ... we are human and therefore we will sin. We strive, as we should, to avoid sin, but we all far short. Really really far short. I think that is part of the point of this teaching - that lust in your mind is adultery. The other point is that our thoughts matter ... they effect our heart and the very essesence of who we are. So don't dwell on negative or sinful thoughts, they transform who you are.

We are all sinners. That's why we need Jesus.

Thanks for sharing your experience here. I know this topic is a struggle for most of us in the faith!

originally posted by: GlassToTheArson
It would seem that Jesus very clearly told those listening to his sermon that to look at a woman and find her sexually pleasing to the eyes and mind was a grievous sin.

Does anyone know the construction of English any more?

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

The way it is not understood is that in which the construction of the English allows. "to" meaning that they went out after the woman later and did commit adultery was already guilty of adultery before the act was done. This is how the sentence is constructed to be understood.

No one is guilty of adultery if they find a woman beautiful, for God makes beauty as well as the ugly.

let's take the same verse and replace woman and adultery and see if it is clearer for you.

Mt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a Ewe to lust after her hath committed bestiality with her already in his heart.

or how about this one

Mt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to murder her hath committed the murder of her already in his heart.

it is all about indirect-objectives and direct-objectives in the construction of the sentence.

Jesus is talking about "Premeditation Proceeding the Crime" People have been charged with premeditation as a crime because they did the act after having the thought on doing it.

It is obvious if you do the act after the thought you are truly guilty of the act before you did it. That is the Point of Jesus Teaching. Now if you look an a woman and find her overtly desirous to have sex with(the meaning of lust in all its uses) and then go after her to have sex with, yes you are already guilty of the act before you actually did i

The problem I have found is no one studies the Bible in English they always go to the Greek or Hebrew and end up way off track of the truth.

You are not guilty of any adultery or fornication if you did not commit the act. But if you had the thought and went through with it you then you are guilty. in the court of Law it is called "Premeditation".

Don't let these so called scholars screw you up. Get an AV Bible and Study it in English. Don't worry about Greek or Hebrew, as we have no verifiable originals only copies of originals and no way to prove the copies are even accurate.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: GlassToTheArson

Next, ask yourself why. Ask yourself "why would the church evolve this meaning into an unavoidable sin"?

Because they keep going to so called "Originals" they don't even have to prove something that is not in the scriptures.

Biblical Scholars have ruined God's words by adding to it their interpretation.

originally posted by: GlassToTheArson
My entire life I have always been told that I have committed "Adultery" if I've "looked on a woman in lust." For 27 years I took that as irrefutable truth and just accepted that that was what the Bible said.

As adultery is an actual physical action, if you have not taken part in that

surely you cannot be guilty? In fact all you have done in looking at a woman

lustfully is to admire the works of the creator ..... in the same way as you

would admire a painting of a talented artist.

You have looked with pleasure but not touched

I always tore myself down and hated myself for the guilt that I felt because I just couldn't stop finding attractive women sexually pleasing to see. It seeped into every single facet of my life and made me an intensely bitter person.

If he did not want beauty to be appreciated .... why did he create it?

The verse that everyone cites when talking about "Lust" and "Adultery" is Matthew 5:28: "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Surely it is more righteous to turn away from temptation, than to

righteously claim to be sin free .... because you were not tempted.


To be sin free without temptation holds no kudos.

Now, coveting is quite different than what modern Christian leaders would have you believe Lust means The word "Covet" means "to yearn to posses." So in essence, Jesus wasn't telling people that it was wrong to look upon a woman and find her image pleasing, sexually or otherwise. He was saying that to look on her and think to yourself "How can I make her mine?" was sinful.

Only if both were married to someone else? surely,,,,

Essentially, during his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was saying that to look on a married woman and think to yourself "How can I have her? How can I make her mine?" was as if you had just gone and done it anyway. I would go so far as to say that it is not even wrong to find the image of a married woman sexually pleasing if you're not coveting to have her as your own. (Whether or not that goes over well with her husband is a different story entirely)

Thoughts are not deeds .... thoughts are random and automatic you

cant control them, but you dont have to act on them, the choice

is what makes you the *saint* or the *sinner.*

Just the thoughts of an agnostic....

a reply to: GlassToTheArson

The meaning you have finally come to understand is how I always understood it. Always research everything.

You are doing this all wrong. Let me help you.

Clearly indicate that you are willing to share her.
And specifically not for in and out. Just love, pure love.
Carnal thoughts should be put away, because someone will only get hurt
when expectations are not met, or unfulfilled.

As such, there are no sticking points, no fuss, no muss.

Insist that he is there to watch, and learn.

When you feel he may be ready, ask him into the bed to join you and his wife.
Being the party outside of the sacred pact, you must remain prone, on your back,
with her in between you and he, so he doesn't feel all gay (and in case she becomes, or is already, pregnant).
Assure him that if it were not for him, their involvement as a team, you would never have dared to visualize this. That you don't want to own her. Next, and this is important, fall into sleep asap.

It's always best to error on the side of modesty, ie.: don't show up unshaven,
with the drug screening kit, a case of tequila, and a gift wrapped, padded velvet,
violet shaded blindfold on the very first date.
He may have flickering suspicions, wrong ideas, and booze will only exacerbate
these stubborn, malingering sentiments.

As for timing, I find that afternoon light cannot be improved on.


P.S. I am OK with being in the middle.
As such, I can telegraph to the man of the house why this was done with his permission,
his supervision, and not behind anybody's back.
Good communication is paramount.

Enjoy.

Hope this helps.

# 693

You're not supposed to get so wrapped up in wanting her that it interferes with any relationships you already have.

If you see an attractive woman and get so caught up in the fantasy of her, that you find you can't look at your wife with the natural affection you should have for her, or worse, you start fantasizing about this other woman when you are with your wife ... then you are sort of going out on the adultery path whether you've been with the actual woman or not.

And I say that because the point is to keep it from hurting the ones you should love. Lust should never interfere with actual love, and if you really love someone, you won't let it happen. That's the point where it becomes sin.

a reply to: rshackleford

Among other sources, I used a book called the Strong's Concordance which lists and details the original translations in both Greek and Hebrew.

I think to insinuate that my findings could be incorrect based on the fact that I, myself, can't read Hebrew or Latin is bit ridiculous

a reply to: ketsuko

That's a really good way to put it and definitely an easier way of trying to describe it to others. Sometimes I get so caught up in facts and terminology that I forget to make sure it can be understood by everyone. (That sounded a tad arrogant. Definitely not my intention)

I've really got to get better about condensing all my responses to one post. Sorry about that

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: GlassToTheArson

If you see an orange, you're automatically going to think of something about it, and you can't stop that, but you can change what that something is that you automatically think. i.e. Don't try to stop thinking thoughts - try to change the thoughts you think.

Another tip that works is to remind yourself that you are deeply in love with your wife (you are infatuated with her). When you are in love (infatuated) with someone, then you will only have eyes for them. (It's okay to lust after your own wife. Proverbs 5:18-19)

That line of thought right there is what causes so many issues for men in the church. That is an absolutely baseless claim.

I love my wife with all of my heart. I find her to be, not only pleasing to the eyes, but sexually fulfilling as well. With that being said, I find many other women to be very pleasing to look upon. In fact, my wife does as well and routinely asks me what I think of one woman or another. In that same vein, I know that my wife loves me intensely! However, I don't think there's a force on Earth that could convince her that David Tennant isn't one of the most attractive men alive.

Loving your significant other doesn't mean that you suddenly, magically stop finding any other individual of the opposite sex attractive. Now for some they may find that that attraction lessens but past that they are forcing themselves to deny the very nature of their being. As others in this thread have said, I don't believe that God would have given man such an appreciation for the beauty of women if he expected men to be constrained to only looking upon one woman for the entirety of their relationship.

Love is not a magical force that just fixes everything and blinds you to the world around you. Love is blood, sweat and tears. Love is anger and happiness and so many emotions in between. It is the most wonderful and at times the most painful thing a person can experience. Love doesn't just happen and if the fire isn't stoked by both individuals then that flame dies.

With all of that being said, I very much respect your position and know that many such as yourself truly believe that you are helping others with this advice. No matter how wrong I may think you are, I think your heart is in the right place.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

The problem I have found is no one studies the Bible in English they always go to the Greek or Hebrew and end up way off track of the truth.

You are not guilty of any adultery or fornication if you did not commit the act. But if you had the thought and went through with it you then you are guilty. in the court of Law it is called "Premeditation".

Don't let these so called scholars screw you up. Get an AV Bible and Study it in English. Don't worry about Greek or Hebrew, as we have no verifiable originals only copies of originals and no way to prove the copies are even accurate.

The flaw in this line of thought is to claim that the English translations, which came from the Hebrew and Latin translations, are somehow more valid or correct. I think it would actually be quite the opposite. The English translations wouldn't even exist without the Hebrew and Latin that came before them.

The point of this post is that the modern church has twisted teachings and meanings to fit certain agendas. There's really no way to be certain that any of these manuscripts haven't been altered somewhere along the line but I find it much easier to trust what some of the earliest translations say as opposed to more modern interpretations.

I find it to be incredibly irresponsible to disregard some of the earliest known forms of these passages when seeking answers.