Web, I haven't destroyed any verses. You talk at me as though we'd tussled in the past. Perhaps I expect too much from people in this medium, but I do ask to be treated with respect, and all I feel I'm getting from you is mockery and some slight denigration. You say you've "heard it all before" before I've really even said anything. Again, you sound as though we've been arguing, and that is not the spirit with which I've come here. Do we have any chance of communicating here without the little digs (at least before they're warranted)? I don't know about you, but it's hard to hear about how my heart is missing the understanding of truth from someone who doesn't seem interested in having a civilized discussion with me, only in telling me how wrong I am without really addressing the statements I've made or questions I've asked, at least not with any shred of serious intent of anything. And you've already made a conclusion about me and my salvation, in all of, what, 6 posts? Is it that easy for you with everyone, or just those who don't think exactly as you do? As I said before, I don't know you, this is just the internet, so I'm not going to defend my salvation to you just yet. I've always been taught that you should know the person with whom you're praying before doing so, and frankly, I'm not comfortable enough with you to go into any discussion about my heart, and certainly not invested enough to get riled up because you think I'm not saved.
But to the point:
Do you understand the difference between identity and practice? Really?
Because I agree that the act of looking on another with lust is certainly "practice." It's an action, whether or not it is a corporeal one. Yet I still see a disctinction between identity and practice.
I've spent some time thinking, and have some questions related to that separation. I'm asking myself these questions, in addition to the 'room.' Some of them are very simplistic, and I find that this simplicitly aids in determining truth. Truth can get lost in too many qualifiers, and it's easy to get sidetracked with a lot of "yeah, but"s. Maybe we have different understandings of lust, or perhaps different understandings of what sexual identity is and is about? I know it's common to say that being gay is about sex, and only about sex, but it would seem that you'd then have to say that being straight is about sex, and only about sex, and is it? I've never thought of it that way. Granted, being defined as one or the other is based in sex and romance, and that makes it sticky, but it would seem that if we're going to say that gay people are sinning for even admitting their preference in a romantic partner (because that, from what I think I understood from web's post, implies lustful thoughts), we would have to say the same about straight ones.
So, along those lines . . . .
Is a girl who wants to get married to a boy (well, one day, when they're woman and man, respectively) considered to be lusting? If we can say no, then a boy wanting to get married to a boy would not be considered to be lusting either, basing both conclusions on the sole issue of being desirous of marriage (and no, I'm not getting into same-sex marriage here, merely using the word in order to give a decent example). Or is attraction itself always lustful?
If two men never marry, each refraining from thoughts of lust as much as possible, and repent of such lustful thoughts or any acts that may come from the thoughts, yet one had thoughts of lust about a woman, and the other had thoughts of lust about a man, how are they different in their sinfulness? Scripturally, I don't see how they could be proclaimed any different in their sinfulness. That's what I'm getting at with identity versus practice. The one who had lustful thoughts for a man is no more sinful than the one who had lustful thoughts for a woman. They each had lustful thoughts - that one had them for a man and the other for a woman doesn't change the fact that they had lustful thoughts.
That brings me to another question. Is being desirous of sex (I'm not speaking of desire in the sexual sense, merely the thought, perhaps, of, "Sex. Hmm. That'll be really cool when I'm married.") being lustful? I wanted to do well in school, and I could envision graduating with honors -- was I being prideful? As I suggested yesterday, defining any sexual identity (again, not speaking to actions, physical or otherwise) as inherently sinful (as it implies being desirous of a romantic relationship, which implies that eventually, one would be desirous of sex) is a pretty strong conclusion to make. That's why I'm asking these questions - their answers will affect everyone of every identity.
When does knowing that you are interested in someone romantically become lusting? When a little girl starts to realize that that little boy who always used to pull her hair in class maybe isn't so full of cooties after all, is she lusting? It may seem extreme, but how isn't it that that's really what we're saying if we can conclude that identity is equal to practice.
These are questions I'm going to reflect on and study about over the next week while I'm on holiday. Thank you web, for having mentioned lust, as that is what has sparked my queries.