Talk:Lust

= Eliminated section on lechery =

I eliminated the redirect to this page from lechery, and the section on lechery. It's not the same thing, and does not need to be discussed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.robie (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

= Wrong picture? =

The picture of luxuria seems wrong to me. I don't read Latin (I do read Greek), but Lewis and Short's entry for luxuria does not list lust as a possible meaning of the word 'luxuria':

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dluxuria

And the picture seems to show "riotous living, extravagance, profusion, luxury, excess", not lust or sexual behavior. I'm not sure that I'm right, though - can anyone help? Jonathan.robie (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I will delete the picture on 11 May 2012, because it's likely a picture of the wrong thing. Jonathan.robie (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

= Simple Questions For A Koine Greek Scholar =


 * 1) If there is no word in the Koine (ancient) Greek Bible that is uniquely (or even usually) translated as "lust", then where did the word "lust" come from?


 * 1) Also, if the word "lust" did not appear until 1500 years later, is the word/concept biblical?

These questions are for you, jonathan.robie

ClickStudent (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The word "lust" is an English word, but related to similar words in other Germanic languages. The article currently mentions this:


 * In Old English (and several related Germanic languages), "lust" referred generally to desire, appetite, or pleasure. The sense of "to have a strong sexual desire (for or after)" is first seen in biblical use in the 1520s.

In German, Lust still has this meaning. "Hast Du Lust" means roughly "would you like", so someone might ask you, "do you have lust to eat ice cream"? (The first time someone asked me that when I lived in Germany, it made me laugh.) But in English, the meaning has generally narrowed, so that it generally refers to sexual desire.
 * I really wanted you to address question 1 for the 15 centuries preceding late middle age non-latin translations. (specific answer required) What you say above, I already knew. I also speak German, und auch andere. ClickStudent (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not seen mention of the word 'lust' in a biblical translation before 1520. If you know of one, feel free to cite it. As far as I know, the use of this in Matthew 5:27-28 first occurs around that time in English translations. Therefore, "where did it come from" isn't answered by earlier translations. The Greek word ἐπιθυμέω, of course, was there in the original Greek. Jonathan.robie (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You ask "is the word/concept biblical"? Certainly the Greek word is biblical, it's in the Bible, and in the 1520s, I think "lust" was a good word to translate it with. Today, I think "desire" or "covet" are probably better words to translate that verse, depending on whether you believe it refers to the commandment to not covet your neighbor's wife. The Bible has a great deal to say about our desires, not just sexual desires, and this same Greek word is also used in verses that address other desires such as the desire for silver and gold.
 * Where in the Bible, precisely? Note that no form of eros in in the New Testament. How do you declare this to be so?
 * I have not mentioned eros in this discussion. Red herring. Read the section on the Greek New Testament to see what I said about ἐπιθυμέω. Jonathan.robie (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So I ask again, where in the Bible does it say that heterosexual desire is inherently wrong outside of marriage? I don't want generic statements that can be taken many ways. I want the ACTUAL SPECIFIC statement regarding heterosexual desire. (I already know its not there. So do you.) ClickStudent (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see what I wrote about common interpretations of Matthew 5:27-28 below. But you are asking me to defined a statement you made, which does not occur in what I wrote. I do not believe ἐπιθυμέω refers specifically to heterosexual sexual desire. I do think Matthew 5:27-28 addresses this. More to the point, most Protestants do, and a section on Protestant views should reflect that. You have a different view that you would like to promote, but this article is not about you.

Jonathan.robie (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are asking what specifically Matthew 5:27-28 condemns? I think these are some common views in modern Protestant circles:


 * Setting your heart on another person's wife is wrong, this is a reference to "thou shalt not covet your neighbor's wife", using very similar words.
 * This is the easy, obvious, direct, specific reading of Mt 5:27-28 ... suitable for fisherman and the masses. No disagreement. What in these verses claim the idea is universal??? ClickStudent (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm listing common interpretations. I see you disagree with this one, and have some disgust for it. I'm not sure what you mean by "universal", I did not use it in the article, this verse does say "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully", are you questioning the word "anyone"?
 * Sexual desire is normal and natural, and certainly to be expected in dating relationships as well as in marriage, but don't go lusting after someone you are not with. I imagine Cloud and Townsend fall in this camp.
 * This used to be considered an obvious sin. (St Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, etc. etc.) Why can't this be mentioned? ClickStudent (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In a section on Protestant views, I think you should discuss Protestant views. In a section on views held historically in the Catholic church, you can certainly discuss the views of these people, but please quote them specifically and take the time to see what they actually taught.
 * This is such a huge generalization on the specifics in the Mt 5:28 ...though I grant it is certainly a widely held belief. ClickStudent (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is a list of widely held interpretations of Matthew 5:27-28, not an article on ClickStudent's beliefs. Is this a verse you apply to your life?
 * Looking at any woman who is not your wife in order to stoke up sexual desire is wrong. Sexual feelings exist, they are part of being human, but don't fan the flames. Pornography, etc. are seen in this category.
 * Again, how does Mt 5:27-28 condemn this? That describes only another man's wife. From where does the generalization come? (I already know you have only extra-biblical generalizations.) ClickStudent (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you interpret "looking at a woman in order to desire her"? This is a common understanding of the phrase "in order".
 * Sexual desire itself is wrong until you are married. Josh Harris is close to this view.
 * ...and you curiously decided to remove this without stated justification. Now you find reason to cite it???? ClickStudent (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This was pretty much the only thing said about Protestant views on the subject in a section that claimed to be about Protestant views. Do you think we should add a list of representative Protestant views?
 * There are, of course, modern Protestants who do not believe there should be any particular restriction on sexual desire. I haven't heard this view presented as an application of Matthew 5:27-28. Usually this view is held by those who believe that we have learned more since biblical times, and don't need to directly apply every verse.
 * So why couldn't this have been mentioned? How was it not mentioned in the previous version? Why not just add citations? You concede what I wanted to insert so eloquently that you make your edits look more like censorship than any desire to inform. ClickStudent (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this list could be a starting point for an overview of Protestant views on lust. With respect, there's a big difference between censorship and the concerns that I listed. A section on Protestant views should be about Protestant views. Claims should be accurate and documented.

That kind of outline would make a good overview of modern Protestant views, but it would need documentation to demonstrate that it actually does represent the most common views.
 * So why didn't you request that in the first place???? Just because we don't agree with that view doesn't mean we must censor it. ClickStudent (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please reread the entire list of reasons I gave. Are there specific things that you said about Protestant views in the Protestant section that you think should be in the article? You really didn't say much about Protestant views at all. An overview of Protestant views could be helpful.
 * This section isn't specifically protestant. A Roman Catholic could be very comfortable with this section. The title, this section, and the entire article do not use the word. Why do you think this section is protestant? It looks ecumenical to me....unsurprisingly. ClickStudent (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The title of the section was "Protestantism", I am the person who deleted that title, in an edit you objected to. It was parallel to a section called "Catholicism". I assumed that a section with the title "Protestantism" was specifically Protestant. But it wasn't specifically anything, and had little to say about Protestantism. Could you please focus your attention on the article that existed before my edit, and the changes that I made, and read both carefully enough that you know basic things like the title of the section? Jonathan.robie (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan.robie (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

= Specific answers to WHAT? =

I NEED BETTER, MORE SPECIFIC, MORE DIRECT ANSWERS OR I WILL DO MY OWN BLANKET REPLACEMENTS JUST LIKE YOU. ClickStudent (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please provide a specific, detailed, direct, response to each of the major criticisms I made of the text in  "Big problems in the 'Protestantism' section"? Jonathan.robie (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have problems with the text I wrote, please provide a specific list of questions you want answered - but specifically about the text I wrote, not about things you imagine I might believe that do not occur in the text. Jonathan.robie (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should I trouble myself with a list when the exemplary approach is blanket replacement? ClickStudent (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You have asked for "better, more specific, more direct answers". If you want them, you have to tell me what you want answers to. And I think you should also provide "better, more specific, more direct answers" to the questions I raised in "Big problems in the 'Protestantism' section". Jonathan.robie (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

= Why Strong's doesn't shed light on King James words =

Strong's is not a Greek dictionary. End of story. It does not claim to be. Here's how the introduction to Strong's describes the renderings:


 * 6. Finally (after the punctuation-mark :-- ) are given all the different renderings of the word in the Authorized English Version, arranged in the alphabetical order of the leading terms, and conveniently condensed according to the explanations given below.

So the "renderings" in Strong's (not "definitions") do not tell you the meaning of the original Greek word, they tell you which words the King James translation used to translate it.

So suppose you think Strong's is a Greek dictionary, you find a word used in the King James, and look it up in Strong's. You are guaranteed to find that word as one of the renderings of the Greek word, because he simply lists every such word. The renderings are based on the King James, not on Greek usage. If the translators got it wrong, that mistake is faithfully represented in Strong's. Jonathan.robie (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

= Liberal/Left-wing Christian views on lust missing in Violation of NPOV rules =

The section on protestant views on lust present only one Evangelical view on the subject, which while fairly representative of the evangelical/fundamentalist viewpoint isn't representative of all protestant christian views on the subject and thus the section violate the NPOV rule on Wikipedia. We should update the section with other viewpoints. More liberal Christian views tend to be less concerned with lust being some sort of a sin or they take an more restrictive view of what counts as lust excluding merely getting sexually aroused by the thought of having sex with others or viewing porn or while masturbating and so forth. Thus merely having sexual thoughts isn't lust in their POV. Thus we should add more liberal Christian POV's on lust to balance out the evangelical POV. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)