18 Dec 04
3 edits
Originally posted by nemesioUnder your definition of tempatation, none of these cases can help us examine the sinfulness of arousal. Remember, you said that if one does not become aroused, one never experienced temptation in the first place.
1) TMediterranian accidentally sees porn, is not aroused, is not
tempted to self-pleasure, thus does not sin.
2) SirWalter accidentally sees porn, is aroused, is tempted to self-
pleasure, chooses not to do so, thus does not sin.
3) ...[text shortened]... e second for attending to his
arousal as a result of sin #1).
Let us examine your four scenarios, under your notion of temptation, and under the presumption that arousal itself is sin. Of your four scenarios, (1) is the only one who doesn't sin - everybody else became aroused. But, (1) didn't choose to not sin - you would say that he was not even tempted in the first place. So (1) has won no moral victory since his dedication to the will of God was not tested.
For the purposes of addressing this thread's intent - the sinfulness of arousal - (3) is completely redundant with (2). This thread is not intended to investigate how one acts upon one's arousal - it's intended to investigate one's power over becoming aroused in the first place, provided that arousal itself is a sin. Thus, you really only presented us with three cases, not four, and under your definition of temptation, none serve to help us investigate this matter because arousal certainly follows from your very definition of temptation.
Your defintion does not allow for a case for somebody to be tempted and exercise their will to overcome that temptation to avoid sin.
18 Dec 04
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis is being presented in complicated ways that are far beyond my faculties. All I know is that when I wake up in the morning something has changed. All I'm asking is this from God or the devil. I tend to think (and thank) God.
Under your definition of tempatation, none of these cases can help us examine the sinfulness of arousal. Remember, you said that if one does not become aroused, one never experienced temptation in the first place.
Let us examine your four scenarios, under your notion of temptation, and under the presumption that arousal itself is sin. Of your f ...[text shortened]... ase for somebody to be tempted and exercise their will to overcome that temptation to avoid sin.
18 Dec 04
Originally posted by kirksey957Ah, this is yet another notion of arousal that I had not even considered - arousal that comes from no apparent stimulus or temptation whatsoever.
This is being presented in complicated ways that are far beyond my faculties. All I know is that when I wake up in the morning something has changed. All I'm asking is this from God or the devil. I tend to think (and thank) God.
I would be most interested in seeing an argument that defends the position that this is a sinful state of being.
18 Dec 04
Originally posted by kirksey957"Remember the scriptures can take on new meaning each time you read them! That is because you have changed since the last time you read them."
Along the lines of another thread on alcoholism: sin or disease, I will open up this thread and we will see what happens. To the theists on the site, I pose the question to you: "Do feelings of arousal (notice I did not use the term lust) come from God or the Devil?"
Michael D. Christensen, in his book: Just Be Yourself, That’s Hard Enough!, p. 128
19 Dec 04
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWell, what I was saying was, since sin may or may not be
Under your definition of tempatation, none of these cases can help us examine the sinfulness of arousal. Remember, you said that if one does not become aroused, one never experienced temptation in the first place.
present when arousal occurs, that arousal is not intrinsically
sinful. Neither, I would say, is being tempted. It is whether
or not a person succumbs to that temptation (or seeks it out)
that determines sinfulness.
As for Kirk's morning friend, I would argue that most churches
would say that it is not sinful (neither would a, um, nocturnal,
um, you know [I don't want this modded]) because it was not
a product of willful action. What Kirk does after he wakes up,
though may or may not be sinful, as far as the church is concerned.
It is interesting to note that this is in contrast to many churches'
positions on this issue from 50 or 100 years ago, where the body
is inherently dirty and pleasure a distraction from the spirit and
God.
Nemesio
19 Dec 04
Come on, is there really a debate here? Arousal is a natural function that helps to perpetuate the species. A lion is aroused so it mounts one of it lionesses. Does that make him a sinner. If an elaphant takes a look at a nice round elaphant a$$ and thinks " I'm gonna hit that" does it make him a sinner. Arousal is just the way it is, no question. If you have never been aroused you should go see a doctor or take one of those drugs that make you horny but make your hair fall out.