Answering old threads thread

Mary Contrary 999

Active member
As if helping you get your definitions correct is a lack of self control?
You have no way to help me here. Semantics aren't your thing.
I think you're thinking of "lewdness" with regard to the public beach, which is doing sexual things publicly.
Words overlap in there meanings without negating the other. Like someone can be described as both a jerk and a wimp. The commonality being an inability to modulate the ego.
Lechery carries with it the connotation of promiscuity, which doesn't apply for old couples who still like to enjoy each other.
At it's core lechery is pursuit of sexual desire despite other priorities. Yes one priority missed by a common lech is marital status. A married lech wants an orgasm more than his wife's love and respect.
So don't be a jerk or a wimp, and keep your lecherous thoughts to yourself.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
We end up with a whole lot of sore feelings and a whole bunch of people banned. Just like last time.
I don't have time for fragility especially since it can be addressed. It's not my fault if you don't address it. And it's not going to stop me or even slow me down; I don't have time for that, like I said.

Banana.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Apparently, when that husband had failed to convince his wife and he'd forgotten how to masturbate ....
That's not; that's never the answer.
That contributes to and never solves marital conflicts.
The body will open the floodgates when needed, a man (husband or not) doesn't have to worry about that.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You make it sound like the conscience is trustworthy. But if Christians need to "walk in the spirit" to produce love joy peace patience kindness goodness gentleness and self-control, how are non-believers going to be able to do those things? Artie said adultery might be permissible in some circumstances. He didn't want to talk about homosexuality being wrong. How much can you trust the conscience of an unbeliever?
The I want to say public morality of the American founders was based on rights, an idea borrowed from the ancient Romans who recognized and acknowledged that there were special laws attached or borne by people just for being a human being, these special laws came to be called rights at some point, before John Locke wrote about them in the 1600s.

I've argued that the self-evident nature of rights comes from a Christian moral principle, Thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself. By this standard what are called 'mala in se' crimes, roughly meaning evil or wicked or wrong inherently, ipso facto, are self-evident, and rights against 'mala in se' crimes are some of the so-called natural or inalienable or human rights. Rights against 'mala in se' crimes.

Just so long as a human recognizes all the same rights that we acknowledge, then we can trust their conscience, but it's almost trivial to say so, mainly just because these crimes, and so the rights against them, are self-evident. They don't have to be a Christian or believe in God to agree with us what constitutes a 'mala in se' crime and that we all possess irrevocably the absolute rights against these crimes being perpetrated against us.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Lechery has no component of mutual consent in any definition I've found. Like this from dictionary.com:
"unrestrained or excessive indulgence of sexual desire."
"Within marriage" is a restraint, therefore you can't be monogamously lecherous. ...
That only follows if, and that's a big 'if' nowadays, the husband is chaste.
 

Derf

Well-known member
You have no way to help me here. Semantics aren't your thing.

Words overlap in there meanings without negating the other. Like someone can be described as both a jerk and a wimp. The commonality being an inability to modulate the ego.

At it's core lechery is pursuit of sexual desire despite other priorities. Yes one priority missed by a common lech is marital status. A married lech wants an orgasm more than his wife's love and respect.
So don't be a jerk or a wimp, and keep your lecherous thoughts to yourself.
I much prefer sources to personally felt semantics. I'd appreciate a source for yours (like a dictionary citation, perhaps).

A "married lech", since promiscuity is part of the definition, is also an adulterer, which Artie was ok with in some cases, as I pointed out. Lechery doesn't seem to have anything to do with sex within marriage.

And I'll assume your description and imperative to be a general one, though it hardly looks like it, since lechery involves action, not argument.
 

Derf

Well-known member
The I want to say public morality of the American founders was based on rights, an idea borrowed from the ancient Romans who recognized and acknowledged that there were special laws attached or borne by people just for being a human being, these special laws came to be called rights at some point, before John Locke wrote about them in the 1600s.

I've argued that the self-evident nature of rights comes from a Christian moral principle, Thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself. By this standard what are called 'mala in se' crimes, roughly meaning evil or wicked or wrong inherently, ipso facto, are self-evident, and rights against 'mala in se' crimes are some of the so-called natural or inalienable or human rights. Rights against 'mala in se' crimes.

Just so long as a human recognizes all the same rights that we acknowledge, then we can trust their conscience, but it's almost trivial to say so, mainly just because these crimes, and so the rights against them, are self-evident. They don't have to be a Christian or believe in God to agree with us what constitutes a 'mala in se' crime and that we all possess irrevocably the absolute rights against these crimes being perpetrated against us.
My tactic was to compare the "inner moral compass" on slightly different subjects--like adultery and homosexuality. If it begins to fail in one area related to sex, why would we trust it in other areas related to sex. And when it begins to fail, it needs to be regrounded by comparison with a trustworthy standard. Human law codes work the same way--as long as they are grounded on a superior standard (not just from humans), they will so well.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
"Chaste" and "monogamous" are describing the same thing.
Maybe to you but not in the modern sense of the word. You have to specify chastity otherwise what lots of otherwise monogamous husbands do is consume pornography and self-gratify, which is not chaste.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
My tactic was to compare the "inner moral compass" on slightly different subjects--like adultery and homosexuality. If it begins to fail in one area related to sex, why would we trust it in other areas related to sex.
Because of consent. And bodily autonomy. And ethical independence (the right to the pursuit of happiness). All very important, but separate issues from chastity.
And when it begins to fail, it needs to be regrounded by comparison with a trustworthy standard. Human law codes work the same way--as long as they are grounded on a superior standard (not just from humans), they will [do] well.
But atheists have to have morality too, and they're not and they don't admit of any divine lawgiver, so how do you ground their morality? And if you can answer that question, then we can talk about a common morality, a public morality. For the American founders that morality was based on what they described as inalienable God-given rights, but atheists don't have to believe in the God-given part just so long as they believe in the alienable one.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Because of consent. And bodily autonomy. And ethical independence (the right to the pursuit of happiness). All very important, but separate issues from chastity.

But atheists have to have morality too, and they're not and they don't admit of any divine lawgiver, so how do you ground their morality? And if you can answer that question, then we can talk about a common morality, a public morality. For the American founders that morality was based on what they described as inalienable God-given rights, but atheists don't have to believe in the God-given part just so long as they believe in the alienable one.
Atheism is particularly noxious with regard to morality, because their only bases for it are personal opinion and history, which is interpreted by their personal opinion. Even their primary creation myth describes their lawless morality: survival of the fittest. That's exactly why we need to ground morality in something better than humanistic "ideals".
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Constancy is for those in the child bearing years not to please dirty old men in their declining days.
You can't provide scriptural support for this statement of yours, so let's revisit it.

What do you mean by "constancy"?

And do you believe that ANY older man who is interested in maintaining a physical relationship with his wife is a "dirty old man"?
 
Top