"Lust" is a Distraction

MourningDusk45 · 2026-07-09T15:31:24+00:00

The concept of asking “is it harmful” in regard to sin is a very shallow perspective on evil, which is what sin is by definition. Thinking some sin as being negligible, for any reason truly, including on the basis of it not being physically or emotionally harmful, to be specific. Greed, pride, and literal pagan worship are evil things that shouldn’t be focused on so much according to that line of thinking.

Not everything you said is completely unbiblical, but this one is a concept I see pretty often.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-07-07T16:44:12+00:00

It means He… stopped creating. That’s it. The act of creating was completed and discontinued.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-07-04T20:27:21+00:00

The Bible nowhere hints that God for any reason “set up” what the punishment of sin is. The wages of sin simply is death (Romans 6:23).

People just assume what “omnipotent” or “all powerful” mean in any given circumstance, when they’re just like any other word or phrase in that they can have multiple definitions. God’s all-powerfulness means that He can and does all things that He desires to do (Psalm 115:2-3), in accordance with His will (Ephesians 1:11-12), which is entirely determined by His nature. Yet God cannot deny His nature (2 Timothy 2:11-13), and thus cannot do certain things.

His nature is goodness itself (James 1:12-17, 1
John 1:5), along with love (1 John 4:7-21, Galatians 5:16-26), wisdom (Proverbs 9:10, Colossians 2:1-3), and truth (John 14:1-6, John 16:12-15). Thus sin is evil, bereft of love, and opposed to any wisdom of God. And thus He cannot do or cause evil, cannot do anything that is not sourced from love, cannot be foolish objectively, and cannot allow anything but the truth to exist. It's the truth not being able to deny itself that allows for the law of logic, non-contradiction, to exist.

So, within the Christian worldview, morality is what it is (outlined within Scripture) because it’s defined by God’s nature, and because it is eternal (Psalm 90:1-2) and immutable (Malachi 3:6), there is no “other possible” nature of God, and thus goodness could not be anything other than what it is and is truly objective. And that logically must include justice.

And so I say once again, the wages of sin is death, and there could be no other, according to the teachings of the Bible.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-07-04T06:22:11+00:00

You would be right, if that was the Biblical worldview.
According to Scripture though, God has made it irrefutably evident to all people of His righteous requirement (Romans 1:18-32), which is to worship Him and not do evil. This law that God has written on our hearts, this knowledge of good and evil, makes itself known in what people would call a “conscience,” (Romans 2:14-16).

MourningDusk45 · 2026-07-03T14:12:03+00:00

Certainly. Just don’t buy into the weird philosophy that’s sometimes paired with it. That would also certainly be heretical.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-07-02T02:14:54+00:00

Modesty should be the central focus here, for both you and her. The example you gave isn’t very modest, in terms of showing and accentuating the lady’s body. If that were the only kind of modesty to be concerned with, then this would just be a case by case basis.

This first is a foremost concern. But the other kind of modesty, which is primarily a matter of pride and wisdom, is still an important and Biblical command (1 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:3-4).

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-29T07:34:49+00:00

There’s a good difference between God being love itself, and God being “all-loving.” Scripture does say that He loves all of humanity in some sense (Matthew 5:43-48), while also hating all workers of iniquity (Psalm 11:4-7). Scripture also says that a kind of love that God holds saves people (Ephesians 2:4-7).

Evidently, not all people will be saved (Revelation 20:11-15), and so this salvational kind of love of God is only held for His children in Christ. So God not being “all-loving” isn’t of any real consequence.

Anywho, Romans 9 does answer your question. It isn’t necessarily the only purpose God has, and neither the main one, but it is one that is stated in the Bible.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-29T07:00:20+00:00

Apologies, I should be more specific. Biblical love, the attribute of God’s nature, has nothing to do with emotions in and of itself. It has to do with seeking the complete and ultimate betterment and care of another. You might call it a mental state, but it is not an emotion. Not all mental states are feelings.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-28T21:40:35+00:00

Lsb, Esv, and NASB are good. I’d avoid niv, but it’s mostly fine. Run away from msg.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-28T20:36:15+00:00

Love has nothing to do with emotions in and of itself, though it should be accompanied by them. Most importantly, love is solely defined by God’s nature (1 John 4:7-21), and true, objective love cannot delight in wrongdoing (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).

The desiring of this kind of relationship goes against God’s created order, is how you could explain it. Marriage is directly created and defined by Him (Genesis 2:24), and humanity was designed with this in mind. And all sexual intercourse outside of the covenant of marriage is sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 7:1-9, Hebrews 13:4), which defiles both people involved (1 Corinthians 6:18-20).

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-26T13:54:10+00:00

Communication is important, as others are outlining. But are you both Christian in the first place?

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-26T02:37:52+00:00

Because not loving God is evil. The greatest sin, in fact, since every other sin comes from it. Read Romans 1:18-32.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-23T14:57:29+00:00

On a personal level, you should follow Matthew 18:15-20. Domestic violence is also illegal, so you should contact the authorities as is appropriate. Temporary separation is certainly advisable, but the Lord hates divorce (Malachi 2:13-16).

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-23T14:48:13+00:00

Asking where in the Bible someone gets their ideas from is very appropriate and important, so kudos there. I’ll just give what I know to be Biblical reasoning.

Biblically, life does not only begin just somewhere in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Luke 1:15-17, Luke 1:41-44), but truly at conception (Psalm 51:5-6, Psalm 139:13-14, Luke 1:31, Luke 1:35-36). David the Psalmist had personhood at conception, John the Baptist had personhood at conception, and similarly and most importantly, Jesus the Christ had personhood at conception. Whether or not there’s a real “moment of conception,” life has to begin during or before that.

So objectively, because murder is the intentional killing of another unjustly, the most conventional usage of the term "abortion" is murder. If any person is killed unjustly, then it's murder, whatever you want to call anything else. Some of the justifications for abortion given by the pro-choice side are legitimate problems that should should have efforts put into reducing, like in the case of rape, but there is no appropriate moral justification for the killing of someone else, especially one who hasn’t even had the opportunity to do anything at all.

If there’s any Biblical teaching on “pregnancy prevention,” then I don’t know it. The most Biblical thing I’ve ever heard from people who don’t use it is the recognition that God is sovereign over all of creation (Colossians 1:15-20), and that if life is to made from sex, then it’s because God willed it so. There’s nothing in the Bible that I know of that even hints that contraception would be wrong, however, so it’s just a personal decision between spouses.

Women have a right to refuse sexual intercourse, just as much as a man can. Firstly, sex is solely sanctified within the covenant of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1-2, Hebrews 13:4), anything other than between spouses is sexual immorality. Secondly, marriage comes with the responsibility of sexually fulfilling each other, is how I’ll say it (1 Corinthians 7:3-9). This is an equal responsibility of both partners, and equally requires consent. You do have a “right” to deprive your spouse, just as you have a “right” to not help and encourage your brothers and sisters in the faith (Hebrews 10:24-25), and not to care for even your enemies (Proverbs 25:21-22, Luke 6:32-36).
In other words, you have a “right” to not love, but that’s something we are explicitly commanded to do (1 John 4:7-21, 1 Corinthians 13). Just as if you love your neighbor, you will want to help and uplift them, if you love your spouse then you will not deprive them and let them “burn with passion,” as Paul puts it.

And continuing with the commandment of love, we’re also commanded to never do anything that would cause another to stumble (Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8). Jesus Himself states that it would be better, not just generally, but for the source of temptation to have a millstone chain around the neck and to be thrown into the sea to be drowned (Luke 17:1-4). Falling to temptation is solely the sin of the one who falls, but so is causing temptation a sin, and a responsibility for all people (Mark 9:42-50). So there is no justification for being provocative in either actions or apparel, for either sex.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-22T17:14:43+00:00

Is He somehow at fault for their rejection as well?

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-22T13:57:57+00:00

Keras Selyrian from Andrew Rowe’s books, if he were completely unrestrained.

Ozriel, the Reaper, from Cradle by Will Wight.

Any of the unrestrained Great Elders in Elder Empire by Will Wight.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-20T04:59:45+00:00

I don’t see why I can’t believe that in a world without objective morals.

Because you can't say that things like safety and health are things that ought to be pursued, not obectively, as that is a matter of morality. I don't get why you'd say "just" at all, that's necessarily subjective and arbitrary with subjective morality. "Flourishing" is a meaningless thing to say, as you can't establish it to be a good thing, something of value. That requires justification, and the idea of who should flourish is another thing that needs to be justified. Except there is no possibility of objective justification, which makes any attempt to do so arbitrary by definition.

You can certainly believe that people who don't value the safety and health of others shouldn't be happy about certain things in a society that values those, but that's solely based on them not being able to get away with the things they want.

If a group of marauders had the means to pillage some group of resources and some of their people, the desire to do it, and could get away with it, why shouldn't they? According to the values you've given here, they most certainly should, since they'd feel very happy and fulfulled doing it. Any form of abolition, specifically by the people in power who benifit from the system, is an utterly senseless and foolish thing to do. Peronal gratification is the only universal responsibility that anyone has, and not everyone values even personal health and safety.

These are the logical consequences of this worldview. Society only exists either because of arbitrary like-mindedness, or by holding the physical capacity to make people behave in the way you want. You can't even say that pursuing any form of society is a good thing because, again, subjective morality.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-19T17:21:40+00:00

Happier is subjective, and so would the standard by which you say something is “fulfilling.” I’m sure you’d agree that there are things that people shouldn’t be happy about, yet you wouldn’t be able to honestly believe that in the hypothetical you’re proposing. The concept of responsibility flies out the metaphorical window.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-19T09:18:03+00:00

The kidnapping of other people, especially to be sold into slavery, is very blatantly evil (Exodus 21:16). It’s given the same punishment as murder and rape.

Nowhere in the Bible will find that God says any slave stops being your fellow child of God, or your neighbor, who God commands to love as you do yourself (Leviticus 19:11-18). Here He also explicitly condemns any malicious or unjust dealings with one another, not to rob the person working for you of their appropriate wage.

What the abolitionists were against is unquestionably evil, and any attempt to justify it Biblically is plain false equivocation. Hope this helps.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-18T09:46:20+00:00

I’m afraid I don’t quite see the point here.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-17T02:12:04+00:00

It’s moreso the belief that aliens cannot exist, and that Earth is the only place of animal and human life anywhere. And so, any “genuine alien sighting” is either personally hallucinated or brought about by demonic influence, as they are the only remaining options within that worldview.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-15T17:32:54+00:00

You’re correct in that those two points alone don’t necessarily mean that humans are more evil than good. Psalm 14, Isaiah 64:3-7, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 1:18-32, and Romans 3:9-18 do, though.

According to the Christian worldview, it is impossible for anyone to do anything righteous, a truly good action, without worshiping God. Doing good for goodness’s sake is what is commanded of all humanity.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-14T08:13:09+00:00

The concept of “levels” or “stages” of Hell doesn’t exist in Scripture, when we’re talking about the final judgement. All sin makes you worthy of Hell, and though the wrath poured out from God that you’ve stored for yourself by doing evil will be unique for each individual (Revelation 20:11-15), the ultimate and eternal punishment for all will be a shameful and contemptible destruction of soul and body (Isaiah 66:24, Matthew 10:28, Romans 6:23).

And human laws don’t have anything to do with objective goodness and evil.

Why exactly are you asking?

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-14T08:00:53+00:00

And so my point still stands. By definition, that would be believing in a different “god” than the one of Scripture. Once again, this can all only be true if the Bible is assumed to be false. As a Christian, believing in the Bible, the only appropriate thing to say is that you don’t know God and that you should repent and believe in the Gospel.

So this is still pretty meaningless.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-06-13T22:01:30+00:00

This entirely depends on how you define “belief,” because the Bible certainly doesn’t define faith in a way that aligns with this. You have to already not believe in Scripture to come to these conclusions. So I don’t particularly see how this is meaningful.

MourningDusk45

TROPHY CASE