Rev. GEOFFRY KERSLAKE is a priest of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Ottawa.
A basic moral principle for Catholic Christians is that we should always treat other people with respect and never use them as objects or a means to getting our own way.
When we catch a glimpse of an attractive person on the street, for example, the first few moments when we notice her or him and think to ourselves how beautiful they are, those thoughts are not sinful. But when we catch ourselves staring at someone, and thinking lustful thoughts about them, is where we begin to sin because other people do not exist for our pleasure or to be treated as an object to admire or covet.
Even though we may not have acted on those thoughts, when we deliberately entertain them we have disrespected another person’s dignity and their right to be seen as a human being and not just as “someone hot.”
Jesus warned his hearers about objectifying other people by our deliberate, lustful imaginings when he said: “I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28 ).
We must strive to see others as a human being made in God’s image and likeness and worthy of our respect.
This is a powerful lesson from Jesus, especially for our times where the gift of our sexuality is so often treated with shallow disregard, or where it is reduced to the pursuit of selfish, self-centred gratification instead of a mutual gift of selfless love in marriage open to the possibility of generating a new human life (cf. John Paul, Theology of the Body).
Rev. RAY INNEN PARCHELO is a novice Tendai priest and founder of the Red Maple Sangha, the first lay Buddhist community in Eastern Ontario.
First, let’s clarify Buddhist morality. Buddhists don’t talk about sin, in the sense that an act corrupts or stains some eternal essence or soul (more on “soul” next week). In Buddhist teaching, our actions either lead us closer to or further from Awakening. That is, they are either wholesome or unwholesome (kusala/akusala). Further, the consequences flowing from our acts are in proportion to and in the direction of the quality of the acts. This is what is meant by our karma.
Karma is widely misunderstood and misrepresented. It is not punishment, nor is it a one-for-one con*sequence. An unwholesome act, such as you stealing a loaf of bread, for example, sets in motion a set of con*sequences, which might include, guilt/relief, regret/pride and the impulse to avoid/repeat the theft, depending on your values and intentions. This example, from the novel Les Misérables shows that it is the intent, at least as much as the act, that matters. Unlike the harsh legalism depicted in that novel, stealing a loaf for the hero’s starving child carries different karma than if he stole it to buy cocaine. Karma, then, is less a judging hammer than the momentum from an act.
Back to those lascivious thoughts. Any thoughts do not stand alone, there is a connection between our thoughts and actions. Likewise, thoughts themselves are connected to patterns of wanting something we believe is valuable. There is a continuum of values-thoughts-actions. This is all part of the larger cycle of how things are interconnected and impacted by karma (“conditioned arising” in Buddhist terms).
When these lascivious thoughts arise, it is because we have a desire to possess some person or object, and, in this case, that desire is unwholesome. The momentum for those thoughts have consequences, although quantitatively and experientially less than if we were to act on them. We must remember too, thoughts of all kinds will arise (from previous karma), so we ought not battle ourselves to “control” our thoughts. Far more important that we evaluate how we will act on those thoughts.
KEVIN SMITH is on the board of directors for the Centre for Inquiry, Canada's premier venue for humanists, skeptics and freethinkers.
What’s in a word? That depends on its cultural definition, and what century we are referring to. In ancient Greece, lascivious meant lustful, and was a general term for a playful, lively desire, without immoral sexual baggage.
This was a good thing for both men and their assorted gods, who not only had lascivious thoughts about those of the same sex, but also acted upon them.
The definition changed with the rise and influence of Christianity throughout Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. It became God-speak for impure sexual thinking. Enter guilty pleasures of the mind. The omnipotent, omniscient creator, able to read our dirty little minds. And we do have them. We are all Winston Smiths, in Orwell’s 1984. Big Brother is not only watching, he also threatens severe torture for thought crime.
But those of us who don’t believe in fictitious damnations allow for lustful thoughts without self-condemnation. Sexual desires, including sexual fantasies, are natural. There is no harm in thoughts, providing they don’t become obsessions and, if carried out, they’re consensual. However, making people feel guilty about lascivious thoughts is most certainly harmful.
There may be some relief for those who struggle with sinful thinking. A sexual enlightenment is occurring in Evangelical circles. In the last few years, several books, sex manuals for Christians, have been released. They encourage sexual experimentation that would make their 19th-century counterparts roll in their graves or turn green with envy.
While encouraging, this revolution needs to go further. I have some pity for homophobic American politicians caught in same-sex affairs: a life of self-loathing for “immoral” thoughts and actions, where the only cure is a futile “pray their gay away.” The only outcome is a family torn apart.
From a humanist perspective, the question should be, “Is labelling thoughts as lascivious immoral?”
ABDUL RASHID is a member of the Ottawa Muslim community, the Christian-Muslim Dialogue and the Capital Region Interfaith Council.
The Islamic view is that we are not really responsible for our thoughts.
Our moral sense may cause an embarrassment at bad thoughts, but we become culpable only when a bad thought is put into practice. In contrast, we are told that our Merciful God will reward us for every good thought and further reward will be added when we put our good intention into action.
While we have no control over our thoughts, we can learn to manage and guide our thoughts. A Muslim scholar suggests that we must counter thoughts that can lead to immorality with thoughts that lead to moral deeds. He warns that bad thoughts can become ideas, which turn into desires and, ultimately, resolutions and actions.
For Muslims, this month provides an excellent opportunity to learn this. It is the month of fasting, Ramadan.
God Almighty says in the Holy Koran that “fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you that you may (learn) self-restraint” (2:193). (Other translations from the original Arabic include “you might remain conscious of God”, “you may learn piety”). The Holy Prophet of Islam said: “One who does not give up falsehood and acting on it, God has no need for him to give up his food and drink.”
To avoid lascivious and other such thoughts, Muslims are advised to spend time in prayer and remembrance and glorification of the Lord. These practices are increased during the month of fasting. When these are coupled with the desire to help the poor and needy of the world, it may leave little time for evil thoughts.
JACK MCLEAN is a Baha'i scholar, teacher, essayist and poet published in the fields of spirituality, Baha'i theology and poetry.
Today’s question asks whether or not a moral distinction may be drawn between thought and action with the lustful desire.
The answer would depend upon which standard is used to judge: the absolute or the relative. The distinction between the ideal and the real may also aid understanding.
The absolute standard of purity/chastity would make no distinction between the thought and action. In absolute terms, the lascivious thought is immoral. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (1844-1921), the son of the Prophet-Founder Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892), and the authorized interpreter of his father’s teachings, wrote that we should keep “… secret and hidden thoughts pure before the Lord of Hosts!” (Tablets, vol. 3, p. 704).
The reason is easy to understand. Thoughts, if strongly driven, usually lead to expression, either in word or deed. If the thought is not immoral, it is unlikely that it would lead to an immoral act. Immoral thoughts lead to immoral deeds. Moral thoughts bring peace of mind.
But relatively speaking, the concrete act would be more sinful than the thought. If a lascivious thought remains private, only the thinker suffers. If the thought is acted *upon, one or more persons suffer the consequences. In some moral theo*logies, temptation is not considered to be sinful, but giving in to temptation is a breach of the law.
Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957), grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, drew a realistic distinction between faith and character that may be useful here.
In answering one of many thousands of questions, he wrote through his secretary: “It is often hard to accept this fact and put up with it, but the fact [remains] that a person may believe in and love the Cause — even being ready to die for it — and yet not have a good personal character or possess traits at variance with the teachings. We try to change, to let the Power of God help re-create us, make us true Bahá’ís in deed as well as in belief. But sometimes the process is slow, sometimes it never happens because the individual does not try hard enough. But these things cause us suffering and are a test to us …” (Oct. 17, 1944).
RICK REED is senior pastor at the Metropolitan Bible Church in Ottawa
Back in the 1950s, a show tune called “Standing on the Corner” became a popular favourite. The song is sung by a quartet of men who enjoy “standing on the corner watching all the girls go by.” They see no harm in letting their imaginations run free. As one line says, “Brother, you can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking.”
While it’s true you won’t wind up in jail for what you’re thinking, Jesus says you can wind up in hell:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell” (Matthew 5:27-29).
Many folks think Jesus’ words are too extreme. I mean, who hasn’t had lustful thoughts?
Our problem is that we are desensitized to God’s standard of holiness. We think God is merely looking for outward conformity to rules. He’s actually looking for purity of heart: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8 ).
If God’s standards are that rigorous, what hope do we have? The Bible says our only hope is found in Jesus. He
offered His life on the cross as payment for our sins, including immoral thoughts. He also promises to remake us from the inside, renewing our hearts and minds to be increasingly like His (Colossians 3:5-10).
All of us have been guilty of “standing on the corner.” Thankfully, God promises (in Romans 5:1-2) that all who put their faith in Jesus get to stand in His forgiving grace.
BALPREET SINGH is legal counsel and acting executive director for the World Sikh Organization of Canada
In the Sikh faith, sexual relations outside of marriage are not permitted. Sikhs are taught to look upon those younger than them as their children, peers as siblings and those older as parents.
The Sikh Gurus taught that the five vices a spiritual person must control are lust, anger, greed, attachment and egotism. These vices are like a veil which does not allow the individual to recognize the truth and the presence of God within. Although all five of these are inherent to the human condition, they must be controlled in order to follow the spiritual path. The thoughts we harbor in our minds are the seeds which eventually become action and so the real effort is to conquer the mind.
Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Guru of the Sikhs said, “every day, increase your love for your wife. But not go to the bed of another woman even in your dreams.” The message for Sikhs is clear that it is not just lustful actions which are to be avoided but thoughts and dreams as well.
The main tool which Sikhs are to use to conquer lust and other vices is meditation on naam or the name of God. The mind cannot conquer itself without a tool and the tool the Gurus taught is daily meditation. By meditating on naam, one endeavors to discover God’s light within and to see it permeating throughout creation. In such a state, lust and the other vices of the mind fall away and the individual is able to recognize the truth.
Rabbi REUVEN BULKA is head of Congregation Machzikei Hadas in Ottawa and host of Sunday night with Rabbi Bulka on 580 CFRA
This sounds almost like the age old question - if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, does it make a noise? The answer there depends on your definition - is noise something that is heard, and if no one hears it is not noise; or is noise an objective reality, whether heard or not.
Here too, all depends on how one defines immoral. Is it an action or a process? In other words, if no one knows, aside from the one doing the thinking, is it anything?
And, turning your question on its head, if a person has very noble thoughts, such as the desire to build orphanages, or to provide food for the hungry, but does not carry out these thoughts, are they laudable?
One thing is clear. The words that are linked with immoral - such as evil, vicious, degrading, etc., would not apply to something that is contained only in thought.
And this may come as a surprise - those who have what you refer to as lascivious thoughts but overcome them, and instead live highly moral lives, are actually the subject of great praise in Jewish tradition.
The nobility of the human spirit is apprehended not only in noble action. It is also manifest in the way that we overcome whatever “demons” float in our heads, but which we are strong enough to control, and even to expel. For example, a kleptomaniac who resists the urge to remove cash from an open safe is more worthy of praise than someone who has no such urges and walks by the open safe with no doubts about what is appropriate.
This does not mean that we should go out of the way to populate our minds with untoward thoughts, in order to fight them, win over them, and be declared righteous. That would be foolhardy.
What it does mean is that if these thoughts creep into our minds, this is no indication of inferiority or sinfulness, and instead presents the opportunity for meaningful human triumph.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/R...l+acted+upon/5319364/story.html#ixzz1WQijoMdR
A basic moral principle for Catholic Christians is that we should always treat other people with respect and never use them as objects or a means to getting our own way.
When we catch a glimpse of an attractive person on the street, for example, the first few moments when we notice her or him and think to ourselves how beautiful they are, those thoughts are not sinful. But when we catch ourselves staring at someone, and thinking lustful thoughts about them, is where we begin to sin because other people do not exist for our pleasure or to be treated as an object to admire or covet.
Even though we may not have acted on those thoughts, when we deliberately entertain them we have disrespected another person’s dignity and their right to be seen as a human being and not just as “someone hot.”
Jesus warned his hearers about objectifying other people by our deliberate, lustful imaginings when he said: “I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28 ).
We must strive to see others as a human being made in God’s image and likeness and worthy of our respect.
This is a powerful lesson from Jesus, especially for our times where the gift of our sexuality is so often treated with shallow disregard, or where it is reduced to the pursuit of selfish, self-centred gratification instead of a mutual gift of selfless love in marriage open to the possibility of generating a new human life (cf. John Paul, Theology of the Body).
Rev. RAY INNEN PARCHELO is a novice Tendai priest and founder of the Red Maple Sangha, the first lay Buddhist community in Eastern Ontario.
First, let’s clarify Buddhist morality. Buddhists don’t talk about sin, in the sense that an act corrupts or stains some eternal essence or soul (more on “soul” next week). In Buddhist teaching, our actions either lead us closer to or further from Awakening. That is, they are either wholesome or unwholesome (kusala/akusala). Further, the consequences flowing from our acts are in proportion to and in the direction of the quality of the acts. This is what is meant by our karma.
Karma is widely misunderstood and misrepresented. It is not punishment, nor is it a one-for-one con*sequence. An unwholesome act, such as you stealing a loaf of bread, for example, sets in motion a set of con*sequences, which might include, guilt/relief, regret/pride and the impulse to avoid/repeat the theft, depending on your values and intentions. This example, from the novel Les Misérables shows that it is the intent, at least as much as the act, that matters. Unlike the harsh legalism depicted in that novel, stealing a loaf for the hero’s starving child carries different karma than if he stole it to buy cocaine. Karma, then, is less a judging hammer than the momentum from an act.
Back to those lascivious thoughts. Any thoughts do not stand alone, there is a connection between our thoughts and actions. Likewise, thoughts themselves are connected to patterns of wanting something we believe is valuable. There is a continuum of values-thoughts-actions. This is all part of the larger cycle of how things are interconnected and impacted by karma (“conditioned arising” in Buddhist terms).
When these lascivious thoughts arise, it is because we have a desire to possess some person or object, and, in this case, that desire is unwholesome. The momentum for those thoughts have consequences, although quantitatively and experientially less than if we were to act on them. We must remember too, thoughts of all kinds will arise (from previous karma), so we ought not battle ourselves to “control” our thoughts. Far more important that we evaluate how we will act on those thoughts.
KEVIN SMITH is on the board of directors for the Centre for Inquiry, Canada's premier venue for humanists, skeptics and freethinkers.
What’s in a word? That depends on its cultural definition, and what century we are referring to. In ancient Greece, lascivious meant lustful, and was a general term for a playful, lively desire, without immoral sexual baggage.
This was a good thing for both men and their assorted gods, who not only had lascivious thoughts about those of the same sex, but also acted upon them.
The definition changed with the rise and influence of Christianity throughout Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. It became God-speak for impure sexual thinking. Enter guilty pleasures of the mind. The omnipotent, omniscient creator, able to read our dirty little minds. And we do have them. We are all Winston Smiths, in Orwell’s 1984. Big Brother is not only watching, he also threatens severe torture for thought crime.
But those of us who don’t believe in fictitious damnations allow for lustful thoughts without self-condemnation. Sexual desires, including sexual fantasies, are natural. There is no harm in thoughts, providing they don’t become obsessions and, if carried out, they’re consensual. However, making people feel guilty about lascivious thoughts is most certainly harmful.
There may be some relief for those who struggle with sinful thinking. A sexual enlightenment is occurring in Evangelical circles. In the last few years, several books, sex manuals for Christians, have been released. They encourage sexual experimentation that would make their 19th-century counterparts roll in their graves or turn green with envy.
While encouraging, this revolution needs to go further. I have some pity for homophobic American politicians caught in same-sex affairs: a life of self-loathing for “immoral” thoughts and actions, where the only cure is a futile “pray their gay away.” The only outcome is a family torn apart.
From a humanist perspective, the question should be, “Is labelling thoughts as lascivious immoral?”
ABDUL RASHID is a member of the Ottawa Muslim community, the Christian-Muslim Dialogue and the Capital Region Interfaith Council.
The Islamic view is that we are not really responsible for our thoughts.
Our moral sense may cause an embarrassment at bad thoughts, but we become culpable only when a bad thought is put into practice. In contrast, we are told that our Merciful God will reward us for every good thought and further reward will be added when we put our good intention into action.
While we have no control over our thoughts, we can learn to manage and guide our thoughts. A Muslim scholar suggests that we must counter thoughts that can lead to immorality with thoughts that lead to moral deeds. He warns that bad thoughts can become ideas, which turn into desires and, ultimately, resolutions and actions.
For Muslims, this month provides an excellent opportunity to learn this. It is the month of fasting, Ramadan.
God Almighty says in the Holy Koran that “fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you that you may (learn) self-restraint” (2:193). (Other translations from the original Arabic include “you might remain conscious of God”, “you may learn piety”). The Holy Prophet of Islam said: “One who does not give up falsehood and acting on it, God has no need for him to give up his food and drink.”
To avoid lascivious and other such thoughts, Muslims are advised to spend time in prayer and remembrance and glorification of the Lord. These practices are increased during the month of fasting. When these are coupled with the desire to help the poor and needy of the world, it may leave little time for evil thoughts.
JACK MCLEAN is a Baha'i scholar, teacher, essayist and poet published in the fields of spirituality, Baha'i theology and poetry.
Today’s question asks whether or not a moral distinction may be drawn between thought and action with the lustful desire.
The answer would depend upon which standard is used to judge: the absolute or the relative. The distinction between the ideal and the real may also aid understanding.
The absolute standard of purity/chastity would make no distinction between the thought and action. In absolute terms, the lascivious thought is immoral. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (1844-1921), the son of the Prophet-Founder Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892), and the authorized interpreter of his father’s teachings, wrote that we should keep “… secret and hidden thoughts pure before the Lord of Hosts!” (Tablets, vol. 3, p. 704).
The reason is easy to understand. Thoughts, if strongly driven, usually lead to expression, either in word or deed. If the thought is not immoral, it is unlikely that it would lead to an immoral act. Immoral thoughts lead to immoral deeds. Moral thoughts bring peace of mind.
But relatively speaking, the concrete act would be more sinful than the thought. If a lascivious thought remains private, only the thinker suffers. If the thought is acted *upon, one or more persons suffer the consequences. In some moral theo*logies, temptation is not considered to be sinful, but giving in to temptation is a breach of the law.
Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957), grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, drew a realistic distinction between faith and character that may be useful here.
In answering one of many thousands of questions, he wrote through his secretary: “It is often hard to accept this fact and put up with it, but the fact [remains] that a person may believe in and love the Cause — even being ready to die for it — and yet not have a good personal character or possess traits at variance with the teachings. We try to change, to let the Power of God help re-create us, make us true Bahá’ís in deed as well as in belief. But sometimes the process is slow, sometimes it never happens because the individual does not try hard enough. But these things cause us suffering and are a test to us …” (Oct. 17, 1944).
RICK REED is senior pastor at the Metropolitan Bible Church in Ottawa
Back in the 1950s, a show tune called “Standing on the Corner” became a popular favourite. The song is sung by a quartet of men who enjoy “standing on the corner watching all the girls go by.” They see no harm in letting their imaginations run free. As one line says, “Brother, you can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking.”
While it’s true you won’t wind up in jail for what you’re thinking, Jesus says you can wind up in hell:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell” (Matthew 5:27-29).
Many folks think Jesus’ words are too extreme. I mean, who hasn’t had lustful thoughts?
Our problem is that we are desensitized to God’s standard of holiness. We think God is merely looking for outward conformity to rules. He’s actually looking for purity of heart: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8 ).
If God’s standards are that rigorous, what hope do we have? The Bible says our only hope is found in Jesus. He
offered His life on the cross as payment for our sins, including immoral thoughts. He also promises to remake us from the inside, renewing our hearts and minds to be increasingly like His (Colossians 3:5-10).
All of us have been guilty of “standing on the corner.” Thankfully, God promises (in Romans 5:1-2) that all who put their faith in Jesus get to stand in His forgiving grace.
BALPREET SINGH is legal counsel and acting executive director for the World Sikh Organization of Canada
In the Sikh faith, sexual relations outside of marriage are not permitted. Sikhs are taught to look upon those younger than them as their children, peers as siblings and those older as parents.
The Sikh Gurus taught that the five vices a spiritual person must control are lust, anger, greed, attachment and egotism. These vices are like a veil which does not allow the individual to recognize the truth and the presence of God within. Although all five of these are inherent to the human condition, they must be controlled in order to follow the spiritual path. The thoughts we harbor in our minds are the seeds which eventually become action and so the real effort is to conquer the mind.
Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Guru of the Sikhs said, “every day, increase your love for your wife. But not go to the bed of another woman even in your dreams.” The message for Sikhs is clear that it is not just lustful actions which are to be avoided but thoughts and dreams as well.
The main tool which Sikhs are to use to conquer lust and other vices is meditation on naam or the name of God. The mind cannot conquer itself without a tool and the tool the Gurus taught is daily meditation. By meditating on naam, one endeavors to discover God’s light within and to see it permeating throughout creation. In such a state, lust and the other vices of the mind fall away and the individual is able to recognize the truth.
Rabbi REUVEN BULKA is head of Congregation Machzikei Hadas in Ottawa and host of Sunday night with Rabbi Bulka on 580 CFRA
This sounds almost like the age old question - if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, does it make a noise? The answer there depends on your definition - is noise something that is heard, and if no one hears it is not noise; or is noise an objective reality, whether heard or not.
Here too, all depends on how one defines immoral. Is it an action or a process? In other words, if no one knows, aside from the one doing the thinking, is it anything?
And, turning your question on its head, if a person has very noble thoughts, such as the desire to build orphanages, or to provide food for the hungry, but does not carry out these thoughts, are they laudable?
One thing is clear. The words that are linked with immoral - such as evil, vicious, degrading, etc., would not apply to something that is contained only in thought.
And this may come as a surprise - those who have what you refer to as lascivious thoughts but overcome them, and instead live highly moral lives, are actually the subject of great praise in Jewish tradition.
The nobility of the human spirit is apprehended not only in noble action. It is also manifest in the way that we overcome whatever “demons” float in our heads, but which we are strong enough to control, and even to expel. For example, a kleptomaniac who resists the urge to remove cash from an open safe is more worthy of praise than someone who has no such urges and walks by the open safe with no doubts about what is appropriate.
This does not mean that we should go out of the way to populate our minds with untoward thoughts, in order to fight them, win over them, and be declared righteous. That would be foolhardy.
What it does mean is that if these thoughts creep into our minds, this is no indication of inferiority or sinfulness, and instead presents the opportunity for meaningful human triumph.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/R...l+acted+upon/5319364/story.html#ixzz1WQijoMdR
unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w
winkingmunda
