Talk:Lust

message: I eliminated the redirect to this page from lechery, and the section on lechery. It's not the same thing, and does not need to be discussed here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.robie (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminated section on lechery 

message: The picture of luxuria seems wrong to me. I don't read Latin (I do read Greek), but Lewis and Short's entry for luxuria does not list lust as a possible meaning of the word 'luxuria':
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dluxuria
And the picture seems to show "riotous living, extravagance, profusion, luxury, excess", not lust or sexual behavior. I'm not sure that I'm right, though - can anyone help? Jonathan.robie (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture? 

message: I NEED BETTER, MORE SPECIFIC, MORE DIRECT ANSWERS OR I WILL DO MY OWN BLANKET REPLACEMENTS JUST LIKE YOU. ClickStudent (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a specific, detailed, direct, response to each of the major criticisms I made of the text in   "Big problems in the 'Protestantism' section"? Jonathan.robie (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

text: If you have problems with the text I wrote, please provide a specific list of questions you want answered - but specifically about the text I wrote, not about things you imagine I might believe that do not occur in the text. Jonathan.robie (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should I trouble myself with a list when the exemplary approach is blanket replacement? ClickStudent (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

text:  You have asked for "better, more specific, more direct answers". If you want them, you have to tell me what you want answers to. And I think you should also provide "better, more specific, more direct answers" to the questions I raised in "Big problems in the 'Protestantism' section". Jonathan.robie (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific answers to WHAT? 

message: Strong's is not a Greek dictionary. End of story. It does not claim to be. Here's how the introduction to Strong's describes the renderings:
:6. Finally (after the punctuation-mark :-- ) are given all the different renderings of the word in the Authorized English Version, arranged in the alphabetical order of the leading terms, and conveniently condensed according to the explanations given below.
So the "renderings" in Strong's (not "definitions") do not tell you the meaning of the original Greek word, they tell you which words the King James translation used to translate it.
So suppose you think Strong's is a Greek dictionary, you find a word used in the King James, and look it up in Strong's. You are guaranteed to find that word as one of the renderings of the Greek word, because he simply lists every such word. The renderings are based on the King James, not on Greek usage. If the translators got it wrong, that mistake is faithfully represented in Strong's. Jonathan.robie (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Strong's doesn't shed light on King James words 

message: The section on protestant views on lust present only one Evangelical view on the subject, which while fairly representative of the evangelical/fundamentalist viewpoint isn't representative of all protestant christian views on the subject and thus the section violate the NPOV rule on Wikipedia. We should update the section with other viewpoints. More liberal Christian views tend to be less concerned with lust being some sort of a sin or they take an more restrictive view of what counts as lust excluding merely getting sexually aroused by the thought of having sex with others or viewing porn or while masturbating and so forth. Thus merely having sexual thoughts isn't lust in their POV. Thus we should add more liberal Christian POV's on lust to balance out the evangelical POV. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal/Left-wing Christian views on lust missing in Violation of NPOV rules