Lust In Marriage

[RezaMikhaeil]

I think a major problem isn't just that Protestants don't see marriage as a sacrament but fail to see it's significance in the bigger picture and chose to see sex as a sacrament instead.

Back when I'd attended a Protestant Bible College, they taught that the book "Song of Songs/Song of Solomon" wasn't symbolic for nothing more then a man's attraction to woman and didn't seem to make the connection to God and his bride [the church].

Budge mentioned women's shelters and I'm going to say that I think women's shelters are like contraceptives, as in they don't solve the real problem. Alot of people that are pro-contraceptives say "well its better then these girls having abortions" just as feminist women that put emphisis on women's shelters don't see that it's just masking the problem. Jesus Christ emphisized being transformed from the inside. A particular scripture that I'm in favor of is:

[quote]1 Peter 3:3-5, "Your adornment should be not an exterior one, consisting of braided hair or gold jewellery or fine clothing, but the interior disposition of the heart, consisting in the imperishable quality of a gentle and peaceful spirit, so precious in the sight of God. That was how the holy women of the past dressed themselves attractively - they hoped in God and were submissive to their husbands, like Sarah, who was obedient to Abraham, and called him her [i]Lord[/i]. You are now her children, as long as you live good lives free from fear and worry."[/quote]

This scripture, doesn't just give an example for women but for men too, as to what the difference between attraction and lust consist of... Attraction isn't just "wow baby, you got a bangin body". Speaking as a man that has been married for over 3 years, with a daughter, I can say that my attraction to her goes much deeper then her physical appearance and thou her body is attractive to me, our initial connection wasn't that. Even after being married for several years, we didn't partake in the physical aspect of our relationship until we decided to have children because we were so consumed with the spiritual aspect. She's a very submissive wife [who actually brought these scriptures to me after we were married for a year, and said that she'd like to be more like them], ultra modest and the most attractive to me. In every ounce of honestly, I'm not on her level in so many ways and don't give her what she deserves [but I'm working on it].

Reza

[Budge]

To be hoenst with you I consider womens shelter the very last resort, this lady should have had fellow church members or family to turn to if she was being abused. I would rather some one go to the worse feminazi womens shelter for a couple days though then become a murderer.[quote]Even after being married for several years, we didn't partake in the physical aspect of our relationship until we decided to have children because we were so consumed with the spiritual aspect.[/quote]

You do realize the state doesnt even consider a couple married until things have been consummated....that means in a way you werent really married til after the several years were up.

If you wanted a roommate why not just get one? or stay engaged until you were sure you wanted to be married?
[b]
1Co 7:5

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.[/b]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Budge' post='1250737' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:04 PM']To be hoenst with you I consider womens shelter the very last resort, this lady should have had fellow church members or family to turn to if she was being abused. I would rather some one go to the worse feminazi womens shelter for a couple days though then become a murderer.

[color="#FF0000"]It shouldn't have to there to begin with...[/color]

You do realize the state doesnt even consider a couple married until things have been consummated....that means in a way you werent really married til after the several years were up.

[color="#FF0000"]That isn't true actually, a simple "kiss" fulfills every state requirement. If it had to do with intercourse, witnesses would have to witness the intercourse to prove that it had taken place. It's quite the opposite thou, simply living together for seven years is common law marriage, what goes on inside of a marriage doesn't concern the legal system. Moreover, I don't really care much about what the government thinks to begin with [if you didn't already know]. I don't believe that a simple legal marriage validates someone being married with God, and I definately don't subscribe to the legal system's definitions of marriage [or much more outside of that to be honest] but I was legally married in order to fulfill the legal requirements as not to go to prison or face other consequences. Legally we're just a piece of paper to the government, nothing more and our children [and everything else inside of the marriage] is considered to belong to the state [which is why parents are forced to give their children vaccines that they don't agree with, etc]. It's only through extensive other legal battles can people be considered more [which I'd done].[/color]

If you wanted a roommate why not just get one? or stay engaged until you were sure you wanted to be married?

[color="#FF0000"]We were married, obviously according to your defination, the difference between being married and not married is simply having sex... what a way to degrade yourself and your spouse. That's no different then prostitution with a contract, but I happen to believe that being married is much more then that young lass and being married, I'm going to advise you not to ever get married until you learn the true meaning of marriage.[/color]


[b]
1Co 7:5

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.[/b]

[color="#FF0000"]A more proper translation would be:

[b]You must not deprive each other, except by mutual consent for a limited time, to leave yourselves free for prayer, and to come together again afterwards; otherwise Satan may take advantage of any lack of self-control to put you to the test.[/b]

Let me define a few terms for you:

[b]1.) Deprive: to remove or withhold something from the enjoyment or possession of (a person or persons): to deprive a man of life; to deprive a baby of candy.

2.) Mutual: of or pertaining to each of two or more; held in common; shared: mutual interests.

3.) Self-control: control or restraint of oneself or one's actions, feelings, etc. [/b]

Now let me say that we were never "deprived" [to withhold something fro the enjoyment or possession of a person] of each other, we had a mutual [of or pertaining to each of two or more, held in common, shared: mutual interest] agreement that we weren't in need of such an element at that moment [and still practice abstinence a bit], and had [and still have] self control [control or restraint of oneself or one's actions, feelings, etc] as the scriptures themselves say that we should have self control [it's a fruit of the spirit if you didn't know]. I was never tempted and she was never tempted. It's no wonder, based upon your definition of marriage, that Evangelical Protestants have such a high divorce rate amongst themselves. Copts have pretty much a zero percet divorce rate [as you probably know that Roman Catholics divorce rate is also substantially low]. Throughout my lifetime, I'd know mass amounts of Evangelical Protestants that professed to be "born again" to be divorced but never met a Copt family to have ever been divorced. Evangelical Protestants have a higher divorce rate then the secular public, and I'm posetive that their doctrinal stance has everything to do with it, "if you don't like this wife, just find another that you will like"... what a way to degrade the sacrament of marriage and each other. Wanna talk about women's rights, encouraging a woman to be a sex buddy of her husband is the worst form of slavery known to man! However, a couple in the greatest amount of romantic love that could exist on the face of the planet, having self-control and mutually agreeing with their sexuality and spirituality is the most cherished and is the greatest gift of love and freedom known to man.[/color][/quote]

[kateri05]

actually, the Church says that your marraige isn't valid (ie a true sacrament) until it has been consummated. this is because conjugal union is the actual matter of the sacrament of marriage (vows are the form) and a sacrament doesn't occur without both matter and form.

i'm curious as well. why not stay engaged until you felt you were ready to begin a one flesh union with your spouse?



not to mention that parents are not forced to vaccinate their kids; it is entirely legal and permissable to exempt your children from vaccines. some public schools do require forms to be filled out, but um, yea. you're allowed to do that.

Edited April 21, 2007 by kateri05

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1250803' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:38 PM']actually, the Church says that your marraige isn't valid (ie a true sacrament) until it has been consummated. this is because conjugal union is the actual matter of the sacrament of marriage (vows are the form) and a sacrament doesn't occur without both matter and form.

[color="#FF0000"]As you mentioned, vows are but one form, but I'd also like to mention that there were Saints that also didn't partake in the physical aspect of the relationship because they were very consumed with the spiritual side and weren't ready for that. Not everyone partakes in every aspect instantly, everyone in god's timing. I'd also like to point out that St. Augustine had once written [and I can't remember the title of the writing off hand but could find it] that sexual intercourse is just for reproductive purposes [not that I agree with him, just that not everyone is ready for this and there's a fine line between attraction and lust].[/color]

i'm curious as well. why not stay engaged until you felt you were ready to begin a one flesh union with your spouse?

[color="#FF0000"]Is marriage just about sex? Is sex the main purpose of being married? I believe that marriage is much larger then that, but really it had nothing to do with me and everything to do with God. I wasn't just going to partake in the physical aspect of the relationship if it wasn't the right time. Most divorced couples I know, the first fruit of the marriage that they partook in was intercourse, and the last aspect was prayer. The first aspect that my wife and I partook in was prayer and scriptural readings, and the last aspect was child bearing [and everything that goes with it].[/color]

not to mention that parents are not forced to vaccinate their kids; it is entirely legal and permissable to exempt your children from vaccines. some public schools do require forms to be filled out, but um, yea. you're allowed to do that.

That's not entirely true, you have to go through an extensive legal process.[/quote]

[kateri05]

of course marriage isn't "just" about sex. children are the primary end of marriage and sex=kids. if you aren't ready for sex, you aren't ready for kids, then you aren't ready for marraige. prayer is most DEFINITELY a part of that, but thats what separates marriage from friendship. eros is a higher love than philia, and in marriage, you need eros. otherwise, why get married? (see cs lewis)


vows aren't "one" form, they are THE form and sex is THE matter. all sacraments have form and matter - eucharist form=words of consecration, matter=bread and wine; baptism form=trinitarian formula, matter =water. marriage form = vows, matter=sex.


those saints who lived in continence consummated their marriage first and had children. THEN they abstained.

[kateri05]

ps. are you catholic? because that could explain some differences we're having here. your view on marriage doesn't seem to fit with the Church's.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1250362' date='Apr 20 2007, 02:52 PM']I read a news article about that case...

77 shotgun pellets is how many holes this guy had in him and he was shot in the back.

That makes me really wonder...and the lady should have just left, that is what women's shelters are for, yes I know that can be difficult but I am disturbed that the guy was shot in the back.

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/19/winkler.trial/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/19/winkler.trial/index.html[/url]

This case IS a TRAGEDY...all around, but change of topic here....

Lust in marriage? Honestly what is that about? Its "wrong" to be attracted to your spouse?
Man and wife are all supposed to live like roommates and come together when its time to procreate only and the women are to lay back and "think of England" as Queen Victoria told one daughter?

Honestly I remember writing that even sex in marriage is looked down on by the Catholic Church and when I see nonsense like that, it backs me up.

You all must be young, and single to write this crazy stuff about marriage. Im happily married and think sheesh what are these people saying?

I guess Im one of those wild bad hellbound... Protestants whose actually attracted to her husband!
Quote:Heb 13:4
[b]
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:
[/b]
:1Co 7:5

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.[/quote]
Lust, as spoken of here (the sin of lust) means [i]disordered[/i] sexual desire.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to one's spouse, and if you'd actually read the Catholics' posts on here (rather than being so busy prosyletizing and twisting words) you'd be well aware of that.

Obviously, no one is claiming the problem here is that this man was sexually attracted to his wife, or that they enjoyed sexual intercourse - the problem was the insistence on using pornography and doing kinky stuff the woman found degrading. That is where lust comes in.
While I can't claim to know all the facts of this marriage, and can't say that this woman was an innocent victim, there was obviously something very screwed up about this marriage.

As for the Church being against married sex, that's about the silliest thing I've ever heard - I suppose that explains why all those orthodox Catholic couples are having so many babies and having happy and lasting marriages!

And do you even know anything about the Theology of the Body?

But of course, Budge has never been one to let the truth get in the way of her anti-Catholic proselytizing.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1250876' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:56 PM']of course marriage isn't "just" about sex. children are the primary end of marriage and sex=kids. if you aren't ready for sex, you aren't ready for kids, then you aren't ready for marraige. prayer is most DEFINITELY a part of that, but thats what separates marriage from friendship. eros is a higher love than philia, and in marriage, you need eros. otherwise, why get married? (see cs lewis)
vows aren't "one" form, they are THE form and sex is THE matter. all sacraments have form and matter - eucharist form=words of consecration, matter=bread and wine; baptism form=trinitarian formula, matter =water. marriage form = vows, matter=sex.
those saints who lived in continence consummated their marriage first and had children. THEN they abstained.[/quote]

CS Lewis is a Protestant that I don't hold to high stardards sorry and no offense.

I still see you putting the most emphisis on sexual attraction, while I'd rather put emphisis on spiritual attraction equally. Here's what important: Friendships and marriages aren't even remotely on the same playing field spiritually [not even talking physically]. What made me marry my wife wasn't just a physical aspect but primarily the fact that I'd wanted to spend the rest of my life with her, worshiping Jesus Christ.

You shouldn't get married just to have sex and/or just to have children, there's so much more then that. There's a 3rd century Coptic Saint [who's name I can't remember] that was engaged to a man, and he died before the marriage and she chose not to get married again because she felt as if they were married spiritually, despite not having been married legally or had the physical aspect. This details and outlines that it was the spiritual factor, the factor that she wanted to spend the rest of her life with him [God Willing], regardless of the physical aspect [thou I'm sure there was one there]. If the physical is the first aspect on your mind, you need to search deeper. Why is it that pre-arranged marriages were so successful in the older tradition? I know a couple that was pre-arranged, and their families arranged them based upon interests, charectoristics, etc. Their marriage was so successful, despite just meeting each other on their marriage night, because their spiritual connection was much deeper then physical attraction [as that was the last attraction for emphisis to be put upon it]. I'm not saying that physical attraction doesn't matter, just that it's not remotely the main function of marriage. Marriage is about loving each other unconditionally, having the desire to spend your entire lives together in worship to Jesus Christ, the rest is just that... "the rest".

There are those that have a different calling...

Reza

Edited April 21, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[kateri05]

marriage is indeed "about" having children. procreation is the PRIMARY end of the sacrament of marriage. you keep acting as though i am denying the spiritual element of the relationship, which i am not. this is crucial to a successful relationship.

however, you seem to be saying that the physical element of marriage - the good which God created so that we could show forth love with our bodies, image Him and be co-creators with Him - is somehow subordinate to that. that is incorrect.


lol and i'm sorry that cs lewis, a respected theologian by both protestant and catholics, is below your standards. would you like me to cite john paul II on the theology of the body. cuz what, he thinks sex is great : (edit, for those called to marriage of course!)

Edited April 21, 2007 by kateri05

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1250934' date='Apr 20 2007, 08:12 PM']marriage is indeed "about" having children. procreation is the PRIMARY end of the sacrament of marriage. you keep acting as though i am denying the spiritual element of the relationship, which i am not. this is crucial to a successful relationship.

[color="#FF0000"]No I didn't say that, what I said is that not everyone partakes in it at the same moments, and that it doesn't validate or invalidate a marriage. It's the vows, receiving the sacrament of marriage, etc. that validate a marriage, not the sexual act. Protestants believe that intercourse is a Sacrament, not marriage itself and I don't subscribe to that theology. I'd also say that marriage isn't just about having children, if it were then it would be a sin for women that are barren or men that are sterile to partake in the sacrament of marriage.

We're encouraged to follow the Saints example, and many of them wrote about abstaining from various activities for various reasons [even within the confines of marriage]. My wife and I spent most of our time, studying the scriptures, praying and seeking God's path for our lives. If we were to partake in the physical aspect, we would be doing it our way, not God's way. God's way was to seek him, in prayer and scripture reading. Now I never said that this is the path for everyone, but for some. In marriage there is so many aspects, and if you go for the sexual aspect first, just because of what it is, rather then asking God, "what would like me to do first", you're going to fail. My wife particularly had some inner demons [as everyone does] as did I and we felt it nessessarily to pray, fast, and read scriptures rather then partake in something at the wrong moment [as other past Saints have done].

I don't believe that the physical aspect or children are the primary factor of marriage but are but one factor. I believe that those that cannot have children, can have a marriage that can bless this world, just as much [and often more] then those that can have children.[/color]

however, you seem to be saying that the physical element of marriage - the good which God created so that we could show forth love with our bodies, image Him and be co-creators with Him - is somehow subordinate to that. that is incorrect.

[color="#FF0000"]No you were the one saying that it's a primary factor of marriage, even going as far as saying if someone doesn't partake in the physical element of marriage, that they shouldn't have gotten married to begin with... I said that marriage is much more then just the physical factor and that we should decide to be married, not just because of that but moreso because of our love and desire to spend eternity together. Marriage isn't just about the physical aspect, but the willingness to love each other forever, and the willingness to serve God together forever. Being someone that seeks the company of older people often [I volunteer with the elderly whenever I can], I'm most astounded by the true love, that the elderly hold. Men loving their lives for 30+ years after their wives can't physically partake in the physical aspect of marriage no more, but moreover love them because of who they are...

There's even Saints in the 3rd century that were married, and seperated from their husbands [temporarily] to lean closer to God amongst the desert mothers, only to reunite with their husbands and be a better wife.

Note: I would never condemn the physical aspect of marriage, for my little daughter Naila wouldn't be here today if it weren't for that aspect that God created![/color][/quote]

[kateri05]

[quote]I'd also say that marriage isn't just about having children, if it were then it would be a sin for women that are barren or men that are sterile to partake in the sacrament of marriage.[/quote]no but it is impossible for those who are impotent to be married. the Church won't marry them because then the marriage wouldn't be able to take place. what does that say about the importance of sex within marriage?


[quote] it doesn't validate or invalidate a marriage. It's the vows, receiving the sacrament of marriage, etc. that validate a marriage, not the sexual act.[/quote]

theologically, you are incorrect. sex does indeed VALIDATE the marriage. VOW+SEX=SACRAMENT. the vows and sex is HOW you receive the sacrament of marriage. vows alone don't do, sex alone either, but both together. the sexual act is an integral, inseparable FUNDAMENTAL part of marriage.

this is the teaching of the church. its in the catechism. look it up



[quote]In marriage there is so many aspects, and if you go for the sexual aspect first, just because of what it is, rather then asking God, "what would like me to do first", you're going to fail. My wife particularly had some inner demons [as everyone does]as did I and we felt it nessessarily to pray, fast, and read scriptures rather then partake in something at the wrong moment [as other past Saints have done].[/quote]


if you did indeed have things to work through, it is good and commendable to spend time in prayer, even together. but because sex is a fundamental part of the sacrament, and the sacrament does NOT occur without, why did you not WAIT to be married, until you had worked through these issues? i'm sorry, but from a theological Catholic perspective, that seems a more appropriate thing to do.

Edited April 21, 2007 by kateri05

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1251016' date='Apr 20 2007, 08:35 PM']no but it is impossible for those who are impotent to be married. the Church won't marry them because then the marriage wouldn't be able to take place. what does that say about the importance of sex within marriage?

[color="#FF0000"]That's not what I said, what I said was someone's inability to have offspring. A Sterile man, doesn't nessessarily mean that he can't "erect" [to put it in the safest terms]. I don't know what the Roman Position is, but I do know what the Coptic Position is and it's that someone's ability or inability to have children doesn't validate or invalidate them from marriage, as marriage is much more then that.

However, as I'd mentioned you've continually misquoted me. You want to admit to that now or later?[/color]

theologically, you are incorrect. sex does indeed VALIDATE the marriage. VOW+SEX=SACRAMENT. the vows and sex is HOW you receive the sacrament of marriage. vows alone don't do, sex alone either, but both together. the sexual act is an integral, inseparable FUNDAMENTAL part of marriage.

this is the teaching of the church. its in the catechism. look it up

[color="#FF0000"]This is just a roman position then [unless you're taking it out of context, which I wouldn't be surprised]. Vows aren't just saying words, and having intercourse isn't just having sex but their significance and meaning are much greater then that and that's my point. Moreover vows are not what validate the marriage, it's love. Vows are one's committment verbally, your position has been that marriage is about children, my position has been that marriage is about love, the choice to love and spend eternity together and as I'd pointed out, numerous Saints have even abstained from intercourse for a set amount of time in order to grow closer together spiritually, and not to be led astray.[/color]

if you did indeed have things to work through, it is good and commendable to spend time in prayer, even together. but because sex is a fundamental part of the sacrament, and the sacrament does NOT occur without, why did you not WAIT to be married, until you had worked through these issues? i'm sorry, but from a theological Catholic perspective, that seems a more appropriate thing to do.

[color="#FF0000"]Being that you added this part, after the fact, let me comment upon it. This is your fundemental problem, you seem to believe that marriage circulates around sex and marriage and that a marrige isn't validated without either. I believe that marriage is a much deeper spiritual connection. That the primary part of marriage isn't sex, but it's the desire to spend eternity together and want to live together forever worshiping God in unity with all the benefits that comes with it. Your take is that you should get married to partake in vows, sex and children.[/color][/quote]

Edited April 21, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[kateri05]

i apologize if i have misquoted you, i certainly did not intend to.

[quote]This is just a roman position then [unless you're taking it out of context, which I wouldn't be surprised].[/quote]

i'm sorry, "just" a roman position? that is phrased a bit on the insulting side.

[quote]Vows aren't just saying words, and having intercourse isn't just having sex but their significance and meaning are much greater then that and that's my point[/quote]i completely agree! thats why you need both together for a valid sacrament! see CCC 1639 and 1640

[quote]. Moreover vows are not what validate the marriage, it's love. Vows are one's committment verbally, your position has been that marriage is about children, my position has been that marriage is about love, the choice to love and spend eternity together and as I'd pointed out, numerous Saints have even abstained from intercourse for a set amount of time in order to grow closer together spiritually, and not to be led astray.[/quote]

marriage IS about children. children are the primary end of marriage (CCC 1652). love is not necessary for marriage, as you yourself said, in the example of arranged marriages (i could include the quote from above so that you don't accuse me of misquoting you, but i think that scrolling should be sufficient!). this is the reason that people who no longer "feel" "in love" are not then able to end their marriage. love is an action, a decision, that is above and beyond any emotion you can "feel." christ's love for us is not expressed in feelings or words, but in an Action that accomplishes our salvation. this is why conjugal union is the renewal of your marriage vows, not saying i love you, or even giving a kiss. by becoming one flesh, offering the gift of yourself to another, you embody, enflesh, the words of your vows WITH your bodies. this is what JPII discusses in his theology of the body.

[Socrates]

If two people have absolutely no interest in sex or procreation, then they shouldn't get married.
However, when and how often a married couple has sex is up to them, and is their own business.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1251113' date='Apr 20 2007, 08:59 PM']i apologize if i have misquoted you, i certainly did not intend to.

[color="#FF0000"]It's cool...[/color]

i'm sorry, "just" a roman position? that is phrased a bit on the insulting side.

[color="#FF0000"]No, it is just a Roman Catholic Position [and I'm not Roman Catholic if you didn't know][/color]

i completely agree! thats why you need both together for a valid sacrament! see CCC 1639 and 1640

[color="#FF0000"]I'm not Roman Catholic, and countless Saints have abstained for various reasons as I'd pointed out.[/color]

marriage IS about children. children are the primary end of marriage (CCC 1652). love is not necessary for marriage, as you yourself said, in the example of arranged marriages (i could include the quote from above so that you don't accuse me of misquoting you, but i think that scrolling should be sufficient!).

[color="#FF0000"]I NEVER EVER EVER SAID THAT LOVE ISNT NESSESSARY!!! That's the most crazy statement to make, to say that love isn't nessessary for marriage. Marriage is just that, LOVE. Without love, marriage is nothing more then having some babies.[/color]

this is the reason that people who no longer "feel" "in love" are not then able to end their marriage. love is an action, a decision, that is above and beyond any emotion you can "feel."

[color="#FF0000"]I believe that love is a choice, that's totally right it's not a feeling, an emotion, etc. but a decision.[/color]

christ's love for us is not expressed in feelings or words, but in an Action that accomplishes our salvation.

[color="#FF0000"]Christ's love is expressed in feelings and words, but also in actions that accomplish our salvation.[/color]

this is why conjugal union is the renewal of your marriage vows, not saying i love you, or even giving a kiss. by becoming one flesh, offering the gift of yourself to another, you embody, enflesh, the words of your vows WITH your bodies.

[color="#FF0000"]I agree with this, and my wife's prayers, obedience and dedication are just that. You're putting every amount of emphisis on the action of sexuality and depriving the rest. Marriage is an emblem of God's relationship with the Church, does Jesus Christ have sex with the church? Is that the main factor of his love? I believe that his love is deeper![/color][/quote]

[N/A Gone]

I think you must say the differences in speculative moral theology, and what the church teaches. I big problem is that many people try to force their own position on each other. Remember, this is a very sensitve subject and we must remain charitable. Many argue from personal experience. the "I am married" arguments. Everyone wants to obey the teaching of the church, but be sensitive when it involves the bedroom.

The idea the marriage is "only"....

is the wrong term. As all sacraments are, there are numerous aspects of it that we only know the tip of. There is unity, there is proper experience of love, there is desire, pleasure, procreative, romance, the graces that come from any aspect of this are incredibly beautiful and should be respected as a mystery. Honoring human life in all aspects is our goal, but please. dont lose the concept of respect and love. The married life is a blessed thing, not a theological exercise.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]9 results for: Lust

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
lust /lʌst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[luhst]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
[b]1. intense sexual desire or appetite.[/b]
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually fol. by for): a lust for power.
4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.
5. Obsolete.
a. pleasure or delight.
b. desire; inclination; wish.
–verb (used without object)
6. to have intense sexual desire.
[b]7. to have a yearning or desire; have a strong or excessive craving (often fol. by for or after).[/b]
[Origin: bef. 900; ME luste, OE lust; c. D, G lust pleasure, desire; akin to ON lyst desire; see list4][/quote]

Budge, you didn't look at all the definitions. Lust is, unfortunately, very loosely defined in the dictionary because its connotations aren't always so bad in our society. However, the kind of lust (which is in reality the only kind of lust, despite the world's misconceptions), fits under the second, third, and fifth definitions. Lust is an "uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite" because it lust controls a person, rather than the other way around. Lust is "a passionate or overmastering desire or craving" because as a desire, it is often difficult to master. Lust is also an "obsolete pleasure" because it falls short of the true plan God intended for love.

Lust is not the same thing as attraction; "lust" is only one of the ways the world falsely defines attraction. I'm extremely attracted to my fiancee. She's very attractive, not only in her physical form and beauty, but in her intelligence, her charity, her sense of humor, her fidelity, and ultimately in how she shows God to me by allowing Him to live in her. To lust would be to take her beauty and try to claim it for myself, rather than allowing her to give it to me as a gift. To lust would also be to accept only those parts of her that are beautiful and good and not to accept the flaws or the parts I didn't like as much. To lust would be to use her as a means to my own sexual, physical, or emotional gratification.

Attraction says, "I see the truth and beauty in you and desire to be drawn into your life and painted into the masterpiece of God that you are, and to give you myself because, before your beauty, myself is the most I can offer."

Lust says, "I see things I want, but I don't love you as a whole; I want to receive you so that you can fill my desires, I want to give you my body in exchange for yours (bartering is not love), but I don't want to fill your needs or desires, nor to point you toward God. I don't care if you're saved or not; I just want what you have to offer me."

Lust fails to recognize the dignity of the human person. It treats the human person as a means to an end.

God bless,

Micah

[carrdero]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1250218' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:43 PM']Anyway that is just to start the discussion. Evidently there were some things the guy was doing that noone would approve up, i.e. pornography. He was forcing his wife to do things she was not comfortable with either. Sounds like behind the scenes this well respected pastor had some issues that the teaching of his religion, which said lust is okay in marriage, was not helping him to deal with and overcome.

Discuss.[/quote]
Sounds to me like he married the wrong woman.

[Budge]

Reza, Im glad your life with your wife is happy now, but your experience was not the norm. Really by the laws of most states and even via the Bible before you had sex you really were not married in the truest sense. A kiss doesnt count for consumation either.
Im glad some of the Catholics realize this is true too.

I can understand two virgins especially late life virgins being hesistant, even after the wedding night, but several years? That is simply not the norm. That tells me one of the parnters has some major psychological or socio- sexual issue they are dealing with. I am glad the Catholics here see what I am talking about. What if you had never been able to come together due to whatever issues there were, health, fear, lack of physical attraction-even with the presence of spiritual and emotional attraction?


[quote]so say that marriage isn't just about having children, if it were then it would be a sin for women that are barren or men that are sterile to partake in the sacrament of marriage.[/quote]People past menopause wouldnt be allowed to have a second marriage either [ie widowe and widowers, or infertile people.
[quote]That the primary part of marriage isn't sex, but it's the desire to spend eternity together and want to live together forever worshiping God in unity with all the benefits that comes with it. Your take is that you should get married to partake in vows, sex and children.[/quote]

If you never have sex, [and yes couples later may not have sex for a variety of reasons, getting old-bad health etc, mutual agreement, Catholics using NFP on short term basis--2 weeks off] you never are "married" in the fullest sense of the definition, you may be soul mates, you may be best friends, but you are NOT married. Even the BIble says the two must become one.