/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>10844

http://access-Jesus.com/definition-of-lust-html/

>The basic definition of lust is having a self-absorbed desire for an object, person, or experience.

>is lustful hedonism a sin?

You are enslaving yourself to your vices and giving up to your lust, perverting your mind and sexual functions (masturbation)

And no, don't start bullshitting about it. If you merely wanted to see art about cute anime girls, there are massive amount of it on the internet that doesn't fall into that garbage category.

If you think Jesus is cool with you flogging your little pecker while looking at fake boobs that some dude drew than you are obviously fooling yourself.

Lust is the problem OP.

A cartoon is just a cartoon.

>>10928

yeah I totally forgot that this board is totally okay with degenracy as long is made by subhuman japs

>>10928

wasting your time in worthless dopamine releases instead of real experiences does not lead to marriage

>>10844

Lust is sinful, ergo hentai is sinful.

>>10844

you fap to Amy tho?

>>10844

"You shall not make for yourself any idol, or any likeness (form, manifestation) of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them nor serve them"

Fapping to drawn pictures is worshipping. The orgasm is the most powerful human spiritual act. Pray for wife and have sex.

>>11558

>Fapping to drawn pictures is worshipping. The orgasm is the most powerful human spiritual act.

Both of these claims are totally ridiculous, and taken together have implications that are too disgusting to explicitly state on a Christian board.

However, you at least made an attempt to cite scripture, which puts you above all the other replies in this thread.

>>11560

>However, you at least made an attempt to cite scripture

Except we didn't need to, because it is self-evident that looking at porn is lustful, which is a sin.

>Matthew 5:28 NIV

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

<but drawing aren't women so it's fine!

This is the kind of disengenious, loop-hole seeking mindset which shows that you don't want to change your mind. Notice how the verse says "look at a woman lustfully", it doesn't say "look at a woman and desire to fornicate with her" or even "look at a woman and imagine to fornicate with her." It just says tolook at a woman lustfully, so it doesn't matter that you cannot physically commit adultery with a piece of paper, if you're looking at a drawing which is designed to depict a woman and you're having lustful thoughts, its triggering the same basic thoughts as looking at a woman with lustful thoughts.

Naturally this applies to women looking at drawings of men as well, but that's not explicitly mentioned so you won't believe it despite it being self-evident.

>>11564

See, now you did it! That wasn't so hard, was it? You now have the new best reply in the thread, because you made an argument that is both based on scripture and not completely insane. I wish you wouldn't assume that I'm arguing against you just because I'm telling you to actually use scripture, though.

>because it is self-evident

"Self-evident" isn't actually good enough. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Follow God's actual commands, don't just assume He commanded something because He said something else that kind of sounds like it.

>Notice how the verse says "look at a woman lustfully"

The KJV renders this as "looketh on a woman to lust after her", which is closer to the Greek and slightly more specific. That excludes looking on a woman for some other purpose and experiencing lust as an unintended consequence, for instance. This is quibbling, though, it doesn't have anything to do with whether images count. More interesting here is that Jesus says adultery and not fornication. One obvious reason for this is that it's logically impossible to commit adultery with your legitimate wife, so this phrasing makes it clear that looking on your own wife with desire isn't a sin. It's also obvious that unmarried men looking to get married are going to look on a potential wife with desire, and by saying "adultery" Jesus makes it clear that's not what He's talking about (though allowing that desire to lead to fornication instead of marriage is still sin, as is stated in so many other places like Acts 15:29 and 1 Corinthians 6:18).

Your best way to complete this argument would be to show that "fornication" as used in the Bible includes masturbation, which I don't think is an unreasonable position to take. 1 Corinthians 6:18 points in that direction, though it doesn't state it explicitly.

>>10844

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

>1 John 2:15-16

/thread

>>11566

> I wish you wouldn't assume that I'm arguing against you just because I'm telling you to actually use scripture, though

You came across that way because of the tone of your posts, particulary the first one.

>>11564

> “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This only applies to people who are married. You can't have adultery without marriage. Give a scripture which forbids unmarried, single men from looking at hentai.

>>11587

>>11575

LUST OF THE EYES

Doesn't matter if they are not real. Doesn't matter if you aren't married.

>>11587

Just I said, disingenious loop-whole seeking logic

>>11597

So according to 1 John 2:15-16 you're not allowed to want to have sex with your wife?

>>11604

>loop-whole

Why should I take someone seriously who can't even spell?

Jumping Jehoshaphat! There's some much dumb theology in here.

>>10849

>Website uses the retarded KJV mistranslation of 1 Timothy 6:10. As well as equating love of money with all lust.

Yeah, nah. Use better resources anon. Lust is simply immoral desire.

>>11558

>2nd commandment

Not the purpose of that commandment, which is about false worship. You failed to exegete it and bring in conjunction with the rest of Scripture, like the commands of God to make various statues and figures for the tabernacle worship as well as Songs.

>The orgasm is the most powerful human spiritual act.

Partially-true, in Songs, the Shulimate does say that holy erotic love is "the very flame of the Lord" and "as strong as death". (Songs 8:6) We'll get back to this. However, the spiritual acts of turning to Christ in repentance and faith, receiving sanctification, and communing with the Lord are more powerful. Also, there's more to erotic love than just coital orgasms.

>>11564

>Matthew 5:28

You are the one who is being disingenuous. You are either withholding key information and context or you are completely ignorant of how to properly study and interpret Scripture. Maybe a bit of both. The context is Christ admonishing people to apply to the sixth commandment internally, not just externally. The word often used here by various translations for "woman" can mean any woman in certain context, majority of the time however it means a married woman or wife specifically. Various commenters also note, it's not just generic lust, but lustful intent.

If you want to use this verse in arguing with OP, then you say "Well, just as we must refrain from lusting to adulterate with married women or with any woman if we are married, we should refrain from fornication inwardly, which looking at erotic art is." And then you go on to prove, from Scripture, that any and all erotic material is in the set of porneia. Good luck proving that while maintaining that Songs doesn't somehow count. Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).

>>11575

>threading your own post

Besides that, you fail to exegete this passage, or define what John means by "lust".

>>10844

I have a better question. Are you trying to follow God's will, or are you looking for loopholes so that you can indulge in fleshly desires?

>>10844

It's obviously a sin but I don't consider it that serious of a matter if you can restrain yourself.

>>11614

Thanks for laying it out plain and simple. Those looking for loopholes are really showing their Jewish traits. Either acknowledge that you're sinning (Which I have to do), or look for some serious help. However, and I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding things, what about media that doesn't "glorify God" in general. For example, since we're already on the topic of anime, what about the fact that majority of Asia media has much of it's content being developed in societies that evolved primarily around Buddhism with (Outside of straight-up Bible adaptations) the closest thing they have to "Christian" media being Makai Tensho (Ninja Scroll/Ninja Resurrection). Isn't consuming that media sinful?

>>10844

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28

My Goodness do people come off as pretentious on here or what!

I'm going to /assume/ that all of you are good natured, even though some of what has been said sounds pretty biting.

I want to start with Song of Solomon, primarily because I find it pretty horrendous to treat the Text as if it's not poetry and then go on to utilize said Text to claim that some visual eroticism outside of a marital covenant is okay (I specified so closely because I'm still on the fence about married couples sending nudes to one another. I'm personally disinclined but I know couples that do it and argue that they're married so it's fine.).

SoS begins with "Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth," because it's beginning with an individual who's already infatuated with the Word of God and knows that it's the Father that we pray to, therein, she's requesting of the Father that He release a greater encounter of the Word (Deut. 8:3) which is Christ (Jn. 1). From there it goes on as an astoundingly intricate depiction of said individual growing from that place. Chapter 1 and 2 cover the two great mistakes that we make (First, getting overzealous and burning out from overworking where God isn't working. Second, wanting to stay and rest in God and not go out and join Him in His work) before chapter 3 depicts a marvelous marriage after the individual gets up and seeks after Him again (Just because you're a "lover" of Jesus and "infatuated" doesn't mean you're committed. Chapter 3 is when she's moved on to be actually committed rather than just delighted in Him). From there it goes on to continue to detail the individual's growth in God, eventually even becoming Like Him (She invites Him to go work in the vineyards, etc., which is exactly what she didn't want to do earlier). So, seeing as even the highly sexual-seeming parts are astounding depictions of a growing relationship between God and a human (Pomegranates referred to the Law, this is why they're all over the Tabernacle, Temple, and the High Priest. Breasts refer to the ability to nurture, which is why they're compared to fawns, etc. etc. etc.), it's highly problematic, to the Text, to conclude that eroticism is approvable by God.

That Being Said. If what you mean is that when you read the word "boobs" and you see them in your head that that is not sin, then sure, I agree with you. However, I'd argue that the moment you dwell on the image, you've likely begun to lust, and that would be sin.

/1

At The Same Time, theoretically, it should be possible to become so innocent, by the Spirit, that you can behold nudity and not lust. However, if you were to ever reach this point, it's /incredibly/ doubtful that you'd find yourself sitting around observing nude pictures for entertainment.

So, this brings us back to the question, is it okay to look at images of fake nudity? Here I believe I'd find the difference between "looking at" and "seeing." If you're walking down the street and someone flashes hentai in your face, I don't think you've suddenly been forced to sin. Rather, you've "seen" fake nudity, and have chosen to move on from it. This is different from "looking at," where you do not move on, but rather, with intention, take in the image. I'm quite confident it's that "taking in" that is inappropriate before God.

Now, going back to Matthew 5, and taking /that/ all the way back to Exodus 20, seeing as my friend above pointed out its origins in the 7th commandment, you can't just take /part/ of the Law, you gotta take it as a whole. The Mosaic Law, given by God, dictates that either you're committing adultery /or/ you marry the person that you have sex with (or, technically, you get stoned, but let's avoid that one for the sake of this discussion). So, if you want to read the Law into what Jesus is saying in Matthew 5, rather than understand that Jesus is drawing from it to ordain a greater commandment, then we should learn from Matthew 5 that married people cannot lust after people, and unmarried people should get married to the first person that they inwardly lust after. Personally, I find it agrees with the totality of Scripture far better to understand that Jesus was explaining a greater commandment, rather than attempt to read Jesus' words through the lens of Mt. Sinai.

Where does this leave us? Can you marry the image of fake nudity? No. Therein, it does quite seem that you are flat out in sin for desiring after it in a sexual manner.

For your brain, there's no difference between the fake image and a real image, even barely a difference between an image and a person, so neurologically you actually have bigger problems (it's flat out the same thing), but I've been trying to stay Scriptural instead of jumping into neuroscience.

All of that being said: Intentionally consuming Hentai for one's personal enjoyment is definitely porneia, if not adultery according to Mt. 5.

Bringing that idea back to SoS, I'll stand my ground and argue that reading the literarily graphic sections for the sake of sexually delighting in the images that the Text brings to your mind is porneia, if not adultery.

/2

Yes.

>>11614

>Already we have condemned virtually all the erotic material made by the Japanese.

Monogamy is pretty common in hentai, but rare in Jewish porn. There's more story development in hentai and more emotional development. Most hentai is probably vanilla, but Westerners generally aren't interested in vanilla and always look for the most offensive things they can find. And then blame anyone other than themselves.

>It doesn't denigrate or muddy what should be glorious. You are searching for an extremely rare jewel in a sea of waste that includes futanari and s—ing d–k ni–les.

No, what's actually happening is that you're going out of your way to look for futanari and scat.

>Even if it shames sexually immorality, it doesn't subtly revel in it or use admonishment or shame to display it. Emergence (don't look it up) about the abused and whorish Japanese school girl who kills herself with drugs is an example.

Emergence is a normalfag meme. It's not even made by a Japanese artist, and it shows.

>All this out of the thousands upon thousands of sewage particles spewed from a regrettably lost humanist nation.

If Japan is lost then what does that say about the West (which, need I remind you, is comprised of Christian nations)? Move out of your glass house before you start hurling rocks at others.