True, the word used in the Gospel can mean both wife or any woman generally. You argue for wife based on the word adultery being part of the context, but I think there is another type of context to consider: the cultural context. At that time girls would have had their marriages planned (and taken place) by the early teens. Thus if you were looking at an attractive girl who wasn't someone's wife or fiancee you were probably looking at a kid. In that case, you had bigger issues to deal with than ordinary old lust. But the larger question I would have is, how did Christians throughout the centuries interpret the passage? Based on what I've read, they seemed to speak against lust generally, and didn't give allowances in the rare occasions that someone a bit older was unmarried. To complement this, they said the same thing about young teenaged boys. True, some had exaggerated (=distorted) ideas about this, but I'm not sure I've come across a Father yet who says lust is ok. St. John Chrysostom and perhaps others say that natural attraction is ok, but then lust is a distortion of natural attraction.
I don't think all girls would have been married by their early teens. I don't know who told you that, but there were certainly women that were not taken.
Hence the term "old maid." Some died before their early teens. Many died before they reached thirty. If they wanted children-and nearly all did-early teens was when to strike the iron while it was hot.
Btw, their is plenty of evidence that yes, marrying in their early teens was nearly the universal norm.
And Christ did not ever teach us that it is always a sin to look at or even to intensely desire such women.
Yes, He did. Read the Sermon on the Mount.
Read the Song of Solomon.
I have. Christ has. Have you.
The couple intensely desired ("lusted")
Your word. Not the Lord's. Not the Church's. Not Solomon's.
for one another before and after the wedding. Intense desire seems to be what often forms holy marriage.
and lust destroys it.
And therefore, those who forbid it fall under the condemnation of 1 Timothy chapter 4 ("hindering marriage") in my opinion.
and in the Church's (and the Lord's) opinion you fall under the condemnation of II Peter chapter 3 ("twist to their own destruction")
15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Indeed, when the Savior met St. Photina (the Samaritan woman at the well) and called her to Himself, she was a woman who was not married. So they were out there, walking around. She happened to be living with a man, but of course Christ did not condemn her for it.
LOL. Boy, talk about a pretzel.
Christ asked her specifically about her husband to point out that she wasn't really married, though she had been "married" many times, including to the one she was living with.
He did not deal with her as he dealt with the adulteress who he he told to "go and sin no more." He had no such condemnation for St. Photina even though she was living with ("lusting for") an unmarried man and he for her.
reading a lot in there. That's called eisogesis, btw. Reading the Bible is suposed to go the other way: exogesis.
You get the name "St. Photina" from Tradition. What does it say about her marital situation?
Lust outside of the the context of adultery is not always sinful.
Inside marriage/outside marriage, lust is always sinful.
Certainly anything can become destructive and sinful, even seemingly harmless foods. But I don't think that most Christians speak against "lust" ("intense desire") generally in history.
then you haven't a clue about history.
As I've already shown in Christian Scripture above, there is good lust and bad lust.
You have shown no such thing. you have just yelled into an echo chamber and thought you heard something.
Lust is bad. Evil. Period.
Lust is simply intense desire
you go with the Devil's Dictionary. I'll stick with Webster's.
the ethics of lust depend entirely on the context.
That they do, as to how evil the lust is. Not on it being good.
Christians speak against certain lusts in certain contexts throughout history, but it is a very un-Christian thing to simply say "lust" is a sin.
when you are catachised, it is "kata" according to "echo" the echo. It is supposed to be the echo of the Fathers through the Church. Not you talking to yourself.
Many say it, but that doesn't make it true or right.
that many say it in the whole consensus of Tradition makes it true and right.
One voice spouting idiocies doesn't make it true or right.
To say "lust is sin" and leave it at that would be to call Christ himself a sinner since Scripture says He lusted for things.
Book? Chapter? Verse?
There is good lust and bad lust.
Just evil lust.