(June 20, 2015 at 2:31 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: But in Christianity, when we refer to "the sin of lust," we are not referring to the isolated act of being aroused. We are talking about taking it a step further by deliberately continuing to feed that arousal by objectifying someone else for personal gratification.
So, if you are married and you see another woman and become involuntarily aroused but go on about your day, you have not done anything immoral. But if upon feeling that arousal you choose to continue to stare and then proceed to fantasize about having sex with this woman or whatever, this is immoral. (all this per Church teaching of course)
Ah, your Church has interpreted the bible this way. What about the other churches which interpret this passage in a different manner?
Why is your interpretation priviieged?
(June 20, 2015 at 2:31 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Also, Parker's Tan, it seems you assume that every time I write something such as I did above, that it is my own personal interpretation that I'm just making up. Lol, trust me I'm not smart enough to make up stuff like this. This is stuff I read in books written by Catholic apologists and theologians. This one in particular I first read about in a Catholic book by Mary Beth Bonacci, but it is a widely accepted view in Catholic circles.
Trust me, I'm not ascribing any originality to you. But you are responsible for the interpretations you choose. In line with the cherry-picking you practice on the Bible itself, you also choose the interpretations that best suit your morality already in place. This is why even in your Catholic Church, there are differences of opinion on matters Biblical.
