HelenM

Oh, you're looking for that?

Well, I know that this is how Christians generally understand that argument, from the Sermon on the Mount.

They certainly think that it's worse to murder someone than to fantasize about murdering someone you are angry with.

If you look at the text you're alluding to, Jesus never says it's just as bad to think about doing a sinful thing, as to do it. He only asserts that it is wrong.

Christians also see it's not possible not to have those initial thoughts, in some situations. It's not possible for things to not 'cross one's mind', necessarily...

But after that one makes a choice whether to 'go with that thought' or to deal with the anger which lead to it. And that's where one is deciding whether to sin or not.

After all, the gospels also say "if you don't forgive others your Father won't forgive you". It's a serious thing not to forgive, to those who believe this is the Word of God. Or it ought to be!

So, yes, it's 'immoral' from a Christian point of view, to fantasize about hurting other people. Definitely. But it's not as bad as acting on the fantasy. And either is forgivable by God to those who seek His forgiveness, so the Bible says. And things you have no control over, are not 'immoral', so it's not immoral for it to 'occur to you' that you'd really like to do serious damage to someone who has hurt you...it's human nature. Where you go with that thought, both mentally and outwardly, is what determines whether what you do next is 'immoral' or not.

love
Helen

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

free12thinker

Helen,
You're very polite in your explanations, but they're still not sound.

You state that human nature is human nature, but you contend that we only get one free pass for every bad thought that pops up. In other words, it's only okay to think about something bad, the first time it comes up. After that, you are supposed to erase it from your mind? How is this possible in your opinion? Let's look at this from a hypothetical:

HYPOTHETICAL
I am a 14-year old male. Jon is my 28 year old neighbor. Jon has sexual thoughts of me, almost on a daily basis. He cannot escape such thoughts, but he has never acted on such thoughts, and in fact, he hides them well enough, that I have no idea.
or
I am a 24 year old male. Janet is my unhappily married neighbor. Her husband is a ghost in her life. She has sexual thoughts of me, almost on a daily basis. She cannot escape such thoughts, but she has never acted on such thoughts, and in fact, she hides them well enough, that I have no idea.
--------------------------------------------------
Is Janet less sinful? Does the virtue of her having thoughts of someone in an equal age bracket and of the opposite sex make her inner desires any less sinful, perhaps because it's more natural? I'm asking this question because people like Jon, and the person who was in the hypothetical that started this topic have thoughts that are engrained in them much like people have thoughts about sex with people that pass them on the streets. It's hormones. And much like I, and a lot of other people, have active hormones, Jon has active hormones as well. There's no magic trick that will just erase it from his mind. People are attracted to different elements of people, and they cannot help it. Not only can't they help it, but such thoughts aren't hurting anyone.

So, I'll ask you again. Is it really fair to label someone like Jon, who has these thoughts, and is attracted to a certain human element, (in this case young boys) immoral, when he 1.)is doing nothing to negatively impact someone else & 2.) is just thinking about things that come natural to him? And if it is immoral, can you give me a reason that goes past God? Or do you just follow whatever he tells you?

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

Scrutinizer

Well I must be a liar then. I can quite honestly say I've never had a rape fantasy. The very thought of rape disgusts me.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

HelenM

Good for you!

love
Helen

HelenM

I'm not sure you quite understood.

Maybe it might cross a person's mind on many occasions that they would like to murder someone they are angry with.

Maybe it might cross a person's mind several times that they would like to have sex with someone that even without bringing God into this, is 'unavailable' to them.

I'm not saying it's ok only the first time it crosses their mind and if it crosses their mind again then that's not ok...

I'm saying that at the time they think it it's not ok to 'go with those thoughts'. Ok, here's a reason past God. I don't believe that it is helpful to fantasize because it just takes us away from enjoying the life we have, accepting the life we have and making the most of the life we have.

You may say that's unhealthy but not immoral. Maybe so but still the point is, it's not a good idea.

And if the Bible says 'don't do something' and it really is a good idea not to do it then I'm going to agree with the Bible regardless of whether it's 'unhealthy' rather than 'immoral'.

Those who make 'moral' and 'immoral' some abstractions that have little to do with reality and what's best for us and in our lives are failing to see that, to Christians, they are bound up together; that what God says is immoral, He generally says because it's not 'good for us'.

Immoral=unhealthy, when we look at many of the boundaries that Christians believe God gave them.

I.e. it's immoral to hurt yourself and others without a valid reason - and there are not many valid reasons.

I'm not going to get into a protracted argument about Christianity here but I think it's important to see that Christians believe, when God says something is 'immoral', it's not just because he's bored and wants to limit human freedom a bit more. Christians believe if God says it's immoral that's the same as saying it's not good for them. In most instances.

I suppose you'll come back with "how is this supposedly immoral thing bad for anyone" and I am not going to guarantee that I'll answer that...just so you know...

love
Helen

free12thinker

Okay. Now you're saying that it's not helpful and that it's unhealthy. That's a lot different than immoral.

And if you're not going to answer the question regarding immorality and negative impacts, than I won't ask.

I'll just end with: If Christians believe that something is immoral (not unhealthy or unhelpful) than we just want a reasonable explanation why. We question things that don't seem reasonable, and not just because they are in the bible.

In case you were wondering.

SmashingIdols

I have never in my had a rape fantasy. Ever. Not once. I find the very idea of rape to be pretty revolting - in fact I wish the courts would make convicted rape a life sentence maximum penalty crime. I think it is one of the most despicable things one person could do to another. In my book it is right up there with pedophilia, just a notch below murder.

I think the person who made the statement above (quoted) has a pretty wierd view of human-sexuality. Do you know why? Rape is not about sex, it's about control.

HelenM

Thanks for explaining - but actually, I wasn't wondering because I've been reading here for a over a year now and even a year ago I wouldn't have expected people who don't believe the Bible is 'authoritative' or 'from God' to do what it says if it seems unreasonable. Why would you?

In fact I have trouble not losing patience with Christians who don't seem to understand that, who seem to think that "the Bible says so" is a worthwhile thing to say to people who don't see any reason to care what the Bible says about anything. Well, ok, say it once as an fyi perhaps; but realistically, who in American society (I can't speak with such assurance about England, Australia or other countries from which people frequent here though) doesn't know by now what "the Bible says" anyway? At least on some things which the Christians continue to push "the Bible says it's wrong".

I don't post much in this forum but this thread caught my eye...

love
Helen

Bree

Me too - very weird. I'd like to know rape fantasies are considered "normal" in the first place. Do most men like to get their rocks off while thinking about harming women, or am I way off base?

livius drusus

I think there is a difference between the act of rape, fantasies building up to rape acts and so-called "rape fantasies". The former two entail the non-consentual violation of a person's mind and body. The latter is the expression of a desire to control or be controlled, but within the confines of consensual (and hopefully very clearly defined) physical and emotional boundaries. This kind of fantasy is not at all gender specific.

So far, this thread has focused on only one possible combination: male wanting to hurt/control female. What if a woman wants to be hurt/controlled? In that case, consent is no longer an issue. What if a woman wants to hurt/control a man or another woman? If I ask my lover to pin me down and take me forcibly (which I have, I might as well admit), that is not a violation. It's me taking my id out for a spin. If someone walks into an SM club in a cockleash and ball-gag looking to find a compatible dom for the evening (which I have not, I might as well admit), that is not a violation either. It is a taste. Unorthodox, perhaps, but a taste nonetheless.

Precisely. As a woman who is usally very much in control, I occasionally feel the need to wallow in its loss. This is a rape fantasy. But there is a clear border between wanting to be forced into submission by a lover or a transient partner and wanting to hurt and violate the unconsenting.