praise_yeshua said:
...
Hi "Silver Surfer"....
-- What is the exegetical basis for claiming that "lust" only applies to sex, and that it is totally different from "greed," which allegedly is the proper term for material desires?
I don't think anyone made such a claim. Maybe they did. I haven't read it. "Lust" can involve "sexual desire". Reference the words of the Master....
Mat_5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart
I read pretty much the whole thread, which can be a good or bad idea. I'm not going to try to track down the exact posts, but there was a part of the discussion that went roughly like this:
---
Person A: One objection to nudity in movies is that it incites "lust" for sex on the part of the viewers. Is this necessarily so? Why doesn't the sight of a big bag of money on the screen also incite "lust" for money?
Person B: You are confusing "lust" with "greed."
---
Now, one can make a lexical case that "love of money" is a distinct thing, and in Scripture almost always carries negative connotations; but the word translated "lust" is much more broad, and can be either positive or negative. So to reply so tersely that "lust" and "greed" are completely separate categories doesn't do justice to either the topic or the language.
Now, apart from the lexical argument, I've seen some respond, based on personal experience, that there is a qualitative difference between "money" and "nakedness": The stored-in-the-mind image of a naked woman can be recalled later for questionable purposes, but the same is less likely to be true of the comparable image of a "bag of money." Fair enough, but what about general images of material opulence and lavish lifestyle? Can't they easily breed envy and dissatisfaction? In my own case, the one thing that really triggers the "Boy, I wish I had some of that" sensation is the mythical "NZT" in the movie version of "Limitless." Ok, sure, I'd love to wield the Power Cosmic, or the hammer Mjolnir, or the abilities of a Kryptonian, but those are clearly fanciful; NZT is, barely, within the realm of the conceivable.
-- Stipulating that it is common to feel at least embarrassment if not "shame" when being seen with little or no clothing, what is the basis for claiming this is an inherent moral sense place there by God, rather than ingrained cultural conditioning? After all, not all cultures share this taboo.
You answered your own question later but I'll review it for you...
Adam and Eve felt ashamed after the fall. They weren't "culturally" conditioned. We do not find anything from God to dissuade them of their shame. It is common considered that God, Himself, fashioned clothes for them to wear.
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
---- Adam and Eve were naked and NOT ashamed before the Fall. After the Fall, they were naked and ashamed, even though their marital status was unchanged. (So the idea that marriage erases the shame aspect must be addressed in light of this.)
I never said it erased the shame of this. It might "dull" it to some degree but its not erased. I don't think you understand the entirely of what it means to be naked. Its just not about someone seeing our gentiles.
Interjection: "Gentiles," "genitals" -- Not the same.
Its also about how we "look" to our spouse. I can tell you, as I age.... no one wants to see what I got to offer anymore....
The same is true for spouses. Even when I was younger, I didn't go around naked in front of wife all the time. There are only so many hours in the day...
---- Believers are "in Christ," who is the "last Adam," and are "new creations." In light of this implication that we are in some sense restored to a pre-Fall state, how is nakedness still shameful?
Why do we still die? Why do we still sin? Why do thorns still come "out of the ground"? Why do we still plant seeds in hope of a harvest?
The "last Adam" has conquered all things for us.... Yet, He's not finished with humanity... You have to realize its not all about us.
Heb 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Its about ALL THE SAINTS of ALL AGES..... When that is complete, EVERYTHING will be complete in Him..
There's a lot to unpack here, and the narrow and invariable width of the composition boxes provided by this software is an unwelcome constraint.
I realize some of this may seem tedious and Clintonesque. Sorry, but tough dookie. Any time we move beyond the basic and ultimate moral principle of "Treat others as you wish others to treat you," details of word-meanings and cultural norms become important.
What is "shame"? Are all forms of "shame" equivalent? I would feel shame if I caught myself "eyeballing" another man's wife. I would feel shame if I got home and realized I'd been walking around all day with a big glob of bird poop on my shoulder. I feel... some kind of not-good feeling that may be "shame" when I see my current Jabba the Hutt physique, and remember the fit frame I had in younger days. I don't think all those forms of "shame" are equivalent. I'd prefer "embarrassment" to describe the second, but I'm not sure the dictionary supports that distinction. And I'm not sure how to categorize the third.
It looks as though it could take quite a bit of digging to sort out the "shame" issue in Scripture. In the NT alone, several different words are translated "shame." It seems as though one pertinent sample might be "aischros," which occurs in 1 Cor. 11:6 and 14:35. If it is "shameful" for women to have improper hairstyles or head-coverings, or to even so much as *speak* in the assembly, then we really need to consider how to determine when "shame" is related to a universal moral principle, and when it is related to a transient cultural taboo.
What about "in real life"? As we know, in some cultures, it is "shameful" for women to expose their faces. In others, both men and women wear nothing more than loincloths. In still others, it is a "shame" for women to wear pants instead of dresses or skirts, or for the hem of the dress or skirt to not reach the knees.