There is a recurring argument in the comment threads which claims that some forms of extramarital sex are not prohibited. The argument is that fornication isn’t a biblical concept, and only a small set of defined extramarital sex activities are prohibited:
- Adultery. Sex with a woman who is another man’s wife, or sex with a woman who is not your wife (but for this latter definition only if you are married).
- Sex with a virgin. But after another man has had sex with a virgin, she is fair game unless one of you is married.
- Sex with prostitutes. Some claim this is only a prohibition against sex with certain kinds of prostitutes (e.g. pagan temple prostitutes).
- Incest.
- Bestiality.
- Homosexuality.
All other forms of sex outside of marriage are then claimed to be permitted. I won’t lay out the entire foundation of faulty logic used to arrive at this claim, but in broad strokes it involves a very narrow reading of the OT, focusing on Leviticus and Exodus, and a tortuously narrow reading of the NT, specifically 1 Cor 6:13-20 (ESV):
13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined[d] to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin[e] a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
I’m not spending time identifying and correcting the long and twisted path of rationalizations used to arrive at the no such thing as fornication claim, because even if the logic used to get there weren’t in fact faulty, 1 Corinthians 7 is sufficient to blow all of these rationalizations out of the water.
7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
What the Apostle Paul explains repeatedly in this passage is that marriage is the solution to sexual temptation. If you don’t desire sex, do not marry. But if you desire sex, the only licit way to pursue it is to marry. And once married, you don’t have the right to refuse sex to your spouse because this would create temptation for sexual immorality.
The text is clear. Marriage is the only permitted path to sex. That we have done great violence to marriage doesn’t (and can’t) change this. However, the fact that we are thwarting God’s plan by destroying marriage should be deeply humbling and convicting. Divorce, child support, and even the subversion of headship are all questions of sexual immorality.
So 1 Cor 7 blows all of the no such thing as fornication rationalizations out of the water at once. But it is even worse for the rationalizers, because their implicit claim is that marriage is the cause of sexual immorality. If no one were married, excluding prostitution homosexuality bestiality incest and sex with virgins, there would be no sexual sin. Every unrelated woman who wasn’t a virgin or a temple prostitute would be fair game for a randy Christian man, so long as neither had married. Christians could be having a giant sexual free for all, if only men and women didn’t marry*. This is not only absurd, but it is the exact opposite of what the Apostle Paul explains is the case. Marriage is the solution to the problem of sexual immorality, but through tortured logic the rationalizers have come to the inescapable conclusion that marriage is the cause of sexual immorality!
I’ll close by noting that Proverbs 5 teaches the same message as 1 Corinthians 7. Verses 1-14 warn the reader to resist the temptation of sexual immorality, or you will fall into the same trap as the speaker:
I did not listen to the voice of my teachers
or incline my ear to my instructors.
14 I am at the brink of utter ruin
in the assembled congregation.”
Then verses 15-19 explain the proper solution to this temptation, before verses 20-23 again remind the reader of the risk if he doesn’t heed the instruction:
15 Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well.
16 Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
17 Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for strangers with you.
18 Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated[d] always in her love.
20 Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman
and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?[e]
21 For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the Lord,
and he ponders[f] all his paths.
22 The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him,
and he is held fast in the cords of his sin.
23 He dies for lack of discipline,
and because of his great folly he is led astray.
*Non Christians would of course have to do the honors of having sex with virgin women to change their status, but so long as Christians aren’t the ones doing this (according to the rationalization) Christians could engage in an endless orgy without sinning.
Unless you’ve preemptively banned Toad, I’m gonna grab a seat and some popcorn, dis gon be gud.
[D: Ha! I have not.]
Pingback: Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality? | @the_arv
An unmarried poster on CAF asked what to do about his sexual desire, and I suggested he find a nice girl and get married. I was, of course, roundly rebuked on the forum for denigrating women by making them some horny guy’s sex doll, but it did seem to be a Biblical solution for someone who had a hard time with lust.
Now, many people here (yourself included) have pointed out the risks of marriage that make it such an undesirable option, and that of course is one of the great evils of our age–that the only legitimate (for a Christian) condition for having sex is now so perverted and broken that it scarcely exists in a recognizable form.
I think you are correct that sex outside of marriage is always sin. Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that some prohibited sexual relations, but not all, are also crimes. Prostitution for example, appears to be a sin but not a crime so long as the prostitute is not married (or the daughter of a priest in the Old Testament). Also, I am not convinced that we understand the biblical definition of adultery. It appears that adultery is defined in the Bible solely as a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband. I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible that says a married man who has sex with an unmarried woman, or who takes more than one wife, commits adultery. If I am wrong about this, then what does 2 Sam. 12:8 mean?
Just by way of clarification, “fornication” is an unmarried man and an unmarried woman having sex with each other. By that standard, probably 95%+ of all men and women have fornicated.
Dalrock, the conclusion that marriage is A cause (not THE cause) of sexual immorality isn’t entirely wrong, at least not in the current context. A major problem is women refusing sex to their husbands for one reason or another, which then drives men to pornography and masturbation, and perhaps a few to adultery and many to divorce. Another major problem is women marrying men for whom they have no, or very little, sexual attraction, and those wives then refusing sex to their husbands. This is not to excuse men; but to explain their conduct.
Perhaps it might be more accurate to say “Marriage 2.0 is a cause of sexual immorality” or “People marrying for the wrong reasons is a cause of sexual immorality” or “Women marrying men and then refusing sex to their husbands is a cause of sexual immorality”.
@Dalrock
This whole debate can be put to rest with this passage alone from Deuteronomy 22:13-21
“If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.”
Or this from Exodus 22:16, in the case that marital fraud wasn’t involved.
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.”
Finishing my thought before I hit “post”:
A big part of the problem is what we in modern society have bastardized marriage into. What we now call “marriage” has almost no resemblance to what the Bible and Christian tradition describe as marriage, or even what marriage was before no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution. Marriage no longer works for a sizable portion of the population, in no small part because it no longer is what it was, or what it is intended to be.
dalrock exuding brilliance and faithful love.
@Joe, you are right, the Christian culture and its opinions about what is legal sex is so outside of what the bible says, we really need to go back to the original text in its original language in its original culture to understand what it means as we have completely lost all understanding.
Its fully allowed in the NT to have slaves (nowadays salaried workers) and multiple wives (nowadays 1 wife currently legally married too, 2 previous on alimony with kids) .
“thedeti says:
August 9, 2017 at 2:01 pm
Just by way of clarification, “fornication” is an unmarried man and an unmarried woman having sex with each other. By that standard, probably 95%+ of all men and women have fornicated.”
fornication is far closer to “prostitution” than anything else in the Greek. If we go by what we think it means in the church, then 99.999% of couples have sinned with the sin of fornication in the eyes of the church\God before they got married.
@deti, as most think of fornication to mean any form of sexual touching even heavy kissing with tongues (oh the heavens….)
Is the argument the never married Men who want to sleep around? They should stay chaste and prepare for Marriage. They desire and we should only warn them to protect themselves from the hordes of immoral Women who will use their solemn vows to abuse them. They still have a good shot at a happy marriage, family and life if we teach them.
I think the argument is probably more supported by divorced Men like myself who are often told we are sexuallly immoral (beyond being Men with a libido) for having sexual desires and no longer being Married. A church that can’t handle simple matters like obeying the Bible’s commandments can’t solve complex matters like what to do when a Man is the victim of someone who didn’t. With this failure many Men simply given in to worldly advice instead and it’s easy to do in this day and age where adulteress Women gives themselves easily to Men. The price might not be divorce but there is still a heavy price for giving in.
I won’t pretend to have easy answers for it myself. My Ex- fully embraced Feminism and turned her back on the Bible while calling herself a Christian (Lesbian). For that and many other reasons there is no rescuing that relationship.
Mine: Yeah, “fornication” is P in V sex. Going all the way. The “home run”. The thing every 15 year old boy wants to have happen with his GF.
Pingback: Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality? - Top
Minesweeper, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that multiple wives is “fully allowed” in the New Testament. Just because a thing is not illegal and punishable by death as adultery is (or was, depending on your view of how much of the Old Testament Law is still applicable), does not mean it is fully allowed. We are told in 1 Tim. 3:2 that elders and deacons are to have but one wife. There must be some reason for this. Why would polygamy disqualify one to serve as an elder if it were fully allowed? I think that if a married man has sex with an unmarried woman and knocks her up, he should be REQUIRED to marry her. Her and her child should be HIS responsibility and not the welfare state. Don’t misunderstand me though; I am not saying that polygamy is a good thing. I am simply saying that if a man is going to be tom catting around, he should bear the responsibility for it. If a man does have more than one wife then, which is evidence of his lack of self control, then he should not be an elder of a church.
This kind of discussion is why I’m not a Christian or get excited about it. Churchians are always babbling about this alleged sin of sex which is a turn off to most of us. I will never apologize for desiring or wanting sex with an attractive woman.
I don’t disparage monogamy or its necessity in raising children, but I’ve always been doubtful that a supreme being obsesses with my sex habits. Also, when churchians speak of marriage, what do they mean? Through the church as was probably the tradition or some government piece of paper licensing such?
Someone: Nowhere in the Bible is the Church or the State given any authority to create, license, or officiate a marriage. Marriage in the Bible is strictly a family affair. Read Genesis 24, the story of Isaac & Rebekah’s marriage. I challenge anyone to give me biblical authority for a church wedding, officiated by clergy, who has power vested in him by the state, after purchasing a required license.
“Churchians are always babbling about this alleged sin of sex which is a turn off to most of us. I will never apologize for desiring or wanting sex with an attractive woman.”
There is no such thing as the “sin of sex”. The biblical principle is that sex is licit only in marriage.
No one expects men to apologize or self-flagellate for desiring or wanting sex with attractive women. Maybe stupid Churchians and Protestant “family ministries” do, but there’s nothing in the Bible or Christian traditions which says that men wanting or desiring sex with attractive women is sin.
“Churchians are always babbling about this alleged sin of sex which is a turn off to most of us. I will never apologize for desiring or wanting sex with an attractive woman.”
That’s the result of the conflicting and contradictory teachings in the modern church. On the one hand, they insist that men not have sex until marriage. Fair enough. In a world where young men marry at the same age their bodies are biologically ready to procreate, that makes sense.
But modern church teaching is that they not get married until they check off a bucket list of accomplishments and achievements that are not only wholly unrealistic, but require they wait until they’re around 30. So they create a culture in which sex is bad and to be frowned upon. If a young man sexually desires a young woman, church leaders freak out because, as they see it, they “can’t” get married that young, and they can’t morally have sex outside of marriage.
If an 18-year-old is not “ready” to get married, then the parents and society and culture that raised them are admittedly that they failed, because they’re acknowledging an adult they raised is not fully prepared for adult responsibilities.
Davis Aurini did a great video on this phenomenon a few years ago and how churches raise their sons like maidens and their daughters like sons and all the chaos this results in
Joe,
I suspect the argument would be based on obeying civil authorities and the lack of any prohibition of that licensing.
Deti,
I thought Dalrock’s point was that marriage makes previous activities immoral in the eyes of many (or what they claim). I thought he was arguing against the illogic that something that was perfectly acceptable (many types of sex outside marriage) suddenly was banned once a man married.
Dalrock can clarify, but I would fully agree with his points if I read them correctly. The argument saying all these things are good and fine is rubbish. I don’t think those things are the worst crimes in the world however and I believe women should be held more accountable for their role pushing men toward those things however. That rarely happens. I cannot think of a single example recently beyond a few sentences, at most, and I listen to quite a bit of preaching.
@The Question
Indeed. The challenge as is the rationalizers want to play a game of theological rope a dope, firing off rationalizations faster than you can refute them with references from the text, hoping that eventually you or the people reading will grow exhausted and give up. But this still leaves the fact that they have inverted the fundamental teaching on marriage, holding it as the cause of sexual immorality instead of the way to avoid it.
I cannot recall hearing anyone claim this directly. The implications do underlay some thinking, but it is never directly claimed. At least I have not heard it. I am sure you could find someone claiming it someplace on the wide Internet, but you can find just about anything there.
@Dalrock
Don’t forget Matthew 5:28 “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Notice he didn’t say “another man’s wife.”
Maybe I missed something, but if you’re not supposed to think about banging hos, my guess is actually banging them doesn’t constitute as a righteous act, either.
thedeti says:
August 9, 2017 at 2:01 pm
Marriage 2.0 doesn’t work exactly because of premarital sex. All that fornicating makes a women unfit to be a wife.
@BillyS
I’m not sure what you are saying here so for clarity I’ll restate my position:
Marriage is the solution to sexual temptation. If you don’t desire sex, do not marry. But if you desire sex, the only licit way to pursue sex is to marry. And once married, you don’t have the right to refuse sex to your spouse because this would create temptation for sexual immorality.
Come on guys, it happens in almost every thread about sexual relations.
I was not clear, but I agree with your statement Dalrock.
I would explain more, but it would probably be equally muddy!
Define “marriage.”
As usual, the Devil is in the details.
And the details have been ignored here.
If one’s belief is that marriage involves a State marriage license, then one believes that we should render to Caesar that which is the Lord’s. Such a one is in blatant violation of the Holy Scriptures.
His people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
Such is the danger of the traditions of men.
As an aside, I always found Paul’s exhortation to remain single, if possible, very interesting. If everyone followed his advice, where were new Christian children going to come from? Or was Paul so certain of Christ’s imminent return that he thought that progeny was a non issue?
Whenever this topic comes up everyone pretends like Jesus never said this.
but I’ve always been doubtful that a supreme being obsesses with my sex habits.
That God cares very much about each sexual act is the logical inference from his participation in the procreative act by creating the human soul at the moment of conception(when a new human life is created, scientifically speaking).
@rollo
“27 You have heard that it was said to those of old,[a] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[b] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Whenever this topic comes up everyone pretends like Jesus never said this.”
because he didnt !
@Minesweeper
He didnt?
@RPP, not according to the Greek, no he said something else. only the KJV says this and all other translations follow from that. translations from 1300 seem to be more accurate, strangely.
Matthew 5:28 Wycliffe Bible (WYC) circa 1390
28 But I say to you, that every man that seeth a woman [for] to covet her, hath now done lechery by her in his heart [now he hath done lechery with her in his heart].
@RPP,Rollo
What the greek actually says is :
But I tell you that anyone who 1(looks with eyes) at 2(someone’s wife) 3(desires and covets her with passion) has already committed adultery with her in their heart.
Its not talking about looking at images or movies or novels or having sexual fantasies.
You need 3 things to commit adultery in your heart according to the verse above :
1. Looking at her (not an image or a thought)
2. Someone’s wife (not single female or male)
3. Covetousness* of her with passion (not sexual desire\arousal\fantasy)
* Marked by extreme desire to acquire or possess, excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of another.
Which corresponds nicely to the OT commandment not to covet thy neighbor’s wife. Almost as if Jesus was explaining the meaning of the original commandment rather that issuing a new one. Which would have been the sin of adding to the Law, meaning He would have sinned and could not be a sacrifice for anyone else’s sins.
Question: If sex outside of marriage is sinful, is not the inverse true, that a person who refuses sex inside of marriage is committing an equivalent sin? I Corinthians 7 specifically prohibits refusing sex inside of marriage, churchian rationalizations notwithstanding. That being the case, is a spouse refusing sex committing fornication by omission? In other words, if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, is she guilty of sexual immorality?
@pod, ding ding ! you win the prize, you are exactly correct. What Jesus was saying was to not covet anyone’s wife.
It never ceases to amaze me just how utterly obfuscated and tied up in knots the church culture seems to believe anything related to sex.
An easy example, Catholics\some Christians still get their knickers in a twist over masturbation. Because of the sin of Onan, now Onans sin wasnt that he was jerkin off, it was that he used the pull out method while having sex with his sister in law. Thus depriving her of his semen so she couldnt have kids related to her now deceased husband.
So because 1 guys used the pull out method with someone who wasnt his wife, now masturbation is a mortal sin.
Go figure ? Its like even the most simplest things involving anything to do with any part of sex in the bible, just is taken to an nutty level. And this obscures the real purpose of the church as its too busy focusing on this BS.
Dalrock…. I would say a sexless marriage (which is actually an oxymoron) might cause sexual immorality, although we all know churchians would deny such.
Sex in the right context (marriage) is not a sin. No Christian would say sex itself is a sin. God told us to be fruitful and multiply.
Outside of marriage is missing the mark with sex…thats where sin begins.
Sigh.
What’s more likely, every Christian and every Jew as far back as anyone knows has got it all wrong about what’s permitted and what’s not or someone busted out the Greek and discovered the “real truth”, that as long as you aren’t married or she isn’t “real” (images in porn), go nuts.
I’m not saying there aren’t bad arguments being used by orthodox people but cmon there’s a smell test problem here.
Disagree.
And to be precise, sex with a virgin isn’t forbidden. As someone quoted, if a man deflowers a woman, he either has to marry her, or pay the bride price for virgins. Pretty far from the list of sexual sins spelled out in the OT.
And don’t forget, the law of the lord is perfect. So he did not forget to put anything in.
I love when people go “well it was understood that’s why it wasn’t spelled out.” if that was true then why did bestiality and murder and theft have to be explicitly mentioned? Because no one knew murder was bad?
And “fornication” goes to “porneia” which means sexual immorality or illicit sex. The fact that we use fornication for an explicit act today might help explain why modern translationa like the niv juat put “sexual immorality” or such.
And lastly Jesus said you commit adultery… The greek word was not porneia. Adultery requires violating marriage vows. It’s not unmarried sex.
Pingback: Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality? | Reaction Times
And seriously, why the snark in the post? It isn’t befitting of a serious discussion.
Another point. You snarkily comment that that would mean marriage causes sexual immorality. You know, people today have just as much adultery and premaritial sex and everything as back when the bible was written. But, most people still think a committed relationship is far more desirable than casual sex.
And the fact does remain–God felt the need to spell out so many sexual sins and label them shameful or death crimes, but he did not bother say pre maritial sex is bad?
Not really. Marriage happens upon penetration, in my research. It is like God recommending not to eat any animal that is not both “cud chewer” and cloven hoof. For ocean animals, only scales and fins together, not one or the other, are allowed, which means shrimp, lobster is not allowed. Can you eat it though? Sure, you can also shoot your foot as well, doesn’t mean you will lose salvation, or that you committed sin, but the reason God recommended not to eat these species is becasue they bring bad toxins, metals and parasites in your body, and this is why it is much more difficult to receive or discern the holy spirit, because you pineal gland, mind and body are full of crap, and God has clearly stated our body’s are temples… Yet… thousands of years later, we have science proving that all the stuff the Bible states, is literally true. Mercury, parasites, worms, no matter how well cooked bring long term issues in the body, as one science study proves that we have a second brain, the gut, who has more neural connections to the brain than any other organ. How many of you here in Dalrock have literally had contact, recently or long time ago, with the Holy Spirit? Led by God or Jesus as testimony? Perhaps we need to detoxify our bodies, juicing, suppositories, essential oils and do exactly what God has stated…. Now back to topic about sex…
Science on regards of sex is not quite there yet (my theory is that the satanic culture that we have across the world refuses to reveal this from the laboratories to keep the problems going on), but it is slowly coming to light. Not long ago Russian scientists discovered the “wireless”, or “photonic” nature of DNA, and how DNA reacted to light for possible communication of some sort (DNA Science and What Russian Researchers Have Surprisingly Discovered…), this goes very well along Dan Winter’s research as well about fractals and DNA (The Purpose of DNA | Dan Winter). Now this wireless DNA concept weighs more on the male side but also applies to the female as well. We do not know what happens in the unseen world, as God mentions that, I paraphrase, “the unseen world is more real than the seen (flesh)” 2 Corinthians 4:18. So it is quite ignorant and stupid to see sex as the flesh only, thinking that sex can only bring diseases and bad behaviors for women, ahem…but assume that men cannot be clinged and addicted/chasing to p*ssy?
Now on to the female side about DNA, but this time, physical and not electrical and light. It is called Microchimerism, where any DNA contact, into her blood, whether vaginally, orally, etc will PERMANENTLY infuse the male’s DNA into her and be essentially be sludged or caked into her system for life, affecting her emotions, behavior and future child. Which means that any child from a non virgin, 1+ partner wife from the first “husband” (I quote husband becasue husband happens upon penetration, not under civil papers under satanic state of Rome that has taken over Washington, but that’s another story), is 100% his, and it is not a coincidence that some kids come out BARELY similar to the Father, why? Because the mother has had previous partners before. “Oh but what about condom and protected sex!”… Sure, you might prevent your DNA microchimerism from being dispersed but now the electrical and light properties come into play, which we DON’T realize, and come into full effect, p*ssy addiction from the male side, and emotional mess on the female side. So, no, the female MAY be divorced under civil papers, single, etc… IT DOES NOT MATTER, becasue if she was “penetrated”, she’s MARRIED FOR LIFE UNDER GOD’S LAWS because that is how nature works. It is why there’s the concept of “soul ties”… where people have emotional and satanic infiltration throughout their lives, becasue they have had sex with others who are NOT saved and have demons attached to them (YouTube, “soul ties sex”). So the notion that it is “ok” to remarry a detached female is bogus, becasue if she is NOT a virgin, she’s destroyed goods, period. The Bible does mention this..
Luke 16:18 KJV
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.
Marry = Penetration (Microchimerism or DNA Penetration transfer)… So once you ****** her, and putteth away her for another, that ‘another’ as in whether she’s virgin or not, you committed adultery. And if you ****** that putteth’ed wife (divorced or non virgin), you just screwed yourself into adultery whether you were abstinent or not. Guys it is clear, ask yourselves why Royalty families are upmost protective about this, becasue it RUINS their line of generations, but for the peasants below, its ok for them to intermingle and mess up their way of life through promiscuity. Does this have to do to the fact that the Bible states clearly about generational curses upon sin?? (Bible Verses About Generational Curses), on how the next 2 or 3 generations will be affected due to the actions of the grandfather or great grandfather? I do not know, those are advance topics, but it is clear.
okrahead @ 4:45 pm:
“I Corinthians 7 specifically prohibits refusing sex inside of marriage, churchian rationalizations notwithstanding. That being the case, is a spouse refusing sex committing fornication by omission? In other words, if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, is she guilty of sexual immorality?”
The crime here is rebellion, not immorality. God gave an order and she refused to obey. She’s rebelling against hubby, too.
For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Although “burn with passion” seems to be a common translation, the Greek word πυροῦσθαι, which is what Paul uses here, literally just means “to burn” or “to be burnt”, and it’s quite possible Paul’s referring to burning in Hell here. Which, of course, would only reinforce the point you’re making about extra-marital sex being a sin.
Here’s the Microchimerism study…
Male microchimerism in women without sons: quantitative assessment and correlation with pregnancy history.
Here’s a fun forum gone into depth about this…
Women absorb and carry living DNA and cells from every male they have sexual intercouse with
In my view, marriage happens upon penetration, now of course, if there was never love in the first place, then God never sees it as a legitimate marriage, therefore ruining yourself and herself.
Faith ( evidence of things unseen, yet true) is required of me to believe in God & Christ. I hold to that faith. The existence of biblical marriage is not a matter of faith. I can observe the world, read the bible & study the contexts of “what is marriage?”, and come to a conclusion that in the world & time I live in, (1.) the biblical institution of marriage either does not exist, or (2.) there are possibly some places in the world I could move to that may possibly sustain a legal framework for a successful biblical marriage. Is my faith sufficient to try and forego all worldly concerns and move around this planet in search of such a Christian/Churchian utopia?
Nope. I will not forego my ability to provide for my family ( broken or not), and myself, to pursue across the planet a mad vision of a Churchian marriage utopia for the sake of finding a place where God is A-OK with me banging a unmarried woman.
@archerwfisher
Good grief, man. There’s no verse explicitly forbidding adults from having sex with children, either. There’s no age of consent specifically mentioned. Are you going to argue that the Bible permits pedophilia or that it is ambiguous on the subject?
If you keep scraping the bottom of the barrel for ways around the issue like this, you’re going to get splinters.
Here’s another one, the story of Ammon and Tamar, which can serve as the final lid on this coffin.
2 Samuel 13
“And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. 11 But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.”
“No, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.”
Since Tamar is advising him to approach David about marrying her rather than having sex with her at that moment, what “wicked” thing is she referring to, if not premarital sex with a virgin?
The prosecution rests its case, your honor.
The Question and everybody,
In Matt. 5:28, Jesus specifically did use the Greek word for a MARRIED WOMAN.
It is a translational issue. The Greek word wife and woman are the same word! That word is usually rendered wife in most places. The translators should render it that way in Matt. 5:28.
The Law always regards adultery as sex with another man’s wife, and the word Jesus used was completely consistent with that definition. Yes, Matt. 5:28 corresponds to the 10th Commandment against coveting your neighbor’s wife.
Jesus did not say that looking upon a marriageable virgin with honorable and upright sexual desire (desire for sex with her in within the confines of marriage) was adultery.
I suppose lusting to bang hoe’s would be pornea in the heart.
By the way, I agree with Dalrock on the larger point. The only acceptable place for sex is within marriage.
As much as I like Toad, he is wrong on this issue.
@ Minesweeper:
You need 3 things to commit adultery in your heart according to the verse above :
1. Looking at her (not an image or a thought)
2. Someone’s wife (not single female or male)
3. Covetousness* of her with passion (not sexual desire\arousal\fantasy)
* Marked by extreme desire to acquire or possess, excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of another.
Your Greek is a bit off here:
– The Greek has γυναῖκα, which, whilst it could refer to a wife, usually just meant a woman simpliciter. If Christ really had meant to refer specifically to already-married women rather than women in general, he’d have used a more specific term, such as ἄλοχον.
– Ἐπιθυμῆσθαι could mean “covet”, but its meaning was broader than this, and encompassed longing for something, desire for something, desire to do something, etc. Again, if the distinction between “extreme desire to acquire and possess” and “lusting after someone” had been important, we’d expect him to have chosen a more precise word.
As for “Looking at her (not an image or a thought)”, the distinction between looking at someone directly and looking at them via a picture is of questionable moral relevance. Unless you can give some plausible reason for why lustfully gazing directly at a woman is wrong, but lustfully gazing at a picture of her is A-OK, the more obvious conclusion would be that Christ is speaking to ordinary people who recognise the sense of what he’s saying, not slippery lawyer types seeking to pare the statement down to the absolute minimum possible.
“And to be precise, sex with a virgin isn’t forbidden. As someone quoted, if a man deflowers a woman, he either has to marry her, or pay the bride price for virgins.”
Not OR but AND.
Biblically, consensual sex with a virginal woman initiates marriage. See Genesis 2:24 (also Matthew 19:6) as well as the above-quoted Deuteronomy 22.
There is only one exception. If she is still living in her father’s house, and he does agree to the marriage, the sexual act counts as a “vow” she made that her father can veto. See Exodus 22:16-17 and Numbers 30.
Scripture does define adultery as sex with a married woman in Leviticus 18:20 and 20:10. Sex with a virgin is called *marriage*. There is not supposed to be a common third state of non-virginal but non-married women with whom to have sex.
Perhaps the exception clause of Exodus 22:16-17 should be applied broadly today with a default paternal “no”. Christian fathers don’t expect their sexually active daughters to marry the first boy that bangs them! But even if that follows the letter of the law, it clearly violates its spirit.
It is a translational issue. The Greek word wife and woman are the same word! That word is usually rendered wife in most places. The translators should render it that way in Matt. 5:28.
Actually there were words, such as ἄλοχος, which referred specifically to wives. If Christ had meant to refer specifically to a married women, he could have used such a word, or else some circumlocution (“a woman who is married to another man”), to make this clear.
Pharisee Jesus: Verily, I sayeth unto thee – dwell thy thoughts on banging a fair maiden all you wish, for it seemingly righteous in the eyes of God. But if by some happenstance thou discovereth that fair flower is already wed, dismiss they evil wicked thoughts henceforth!
Slightly off topic, but in relation to both 1 Cor 7 and the recent post about John Piper. Has anyone seen his exegesis of the verses listed above? http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/sexual-intimacy-and-the-rights-over-a-spouses-body-in-marriage Is it me or does he ignore the plain meaning from verse 5 so that he can twist Paul’s words to mean the exact opposite of what he intended? Ever since stumbling upon this, it threw everything else I’ve heard by them into doubt.
“The Question says:
August 9, 2017 at 6:06 pm
Here’s another one, the story of Ammon and Tamar, which can serve as the final lid on this coffin.
2 Samuel 13
“And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. 11 But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.”
“No, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? ”
its because he was going to “rape” her. she was not consenting to this nor had any idea.
@ Minesweeper
Again, she suggest Ammon go to David have them married. Is she didn’t want to have sex with him then, why would she suggest marriage?
I suppose you can argue scriptural context and translation endlessly, but strict or legislated monogamy will always fail eventually because it’s like onenites in ‘game’ terms. You are essentially elevating a women above her station and thus you’ll not be able to sustain the relationship in a balanced way. It will either be a stone cold type of relationship or one which is overly emotional.
A man who has recused himself from having options, has no power to balance things out or make anyone feel special. In fact, when a man to promises exclusivity to a woman, it only makes it harder on her to remain loyal him in the long run. Legislated monogamy ends therefore in serial monogamy.
Another thing we aren’t talking about is the fact that sex creates a one flesh union (marriage).
The only truly single women are the virgins. A woman who isn’t a virgin is a man’s wife.
In 1 Cor. Paul tells us that even sex with a prostitute makes you “one-flesh” with her (exact same language as Genesis 2). If banging a hooker makes you one flesh, then obviously deflowering your girlfriend does as well (and God’s Law requires marriage in that situation).
Sex with a virgin was a violation of the father’s authority (sin), but it wasn’t a form of sexual immorality proper. Sex with a virgin was basically entrance into marriage without proper authorization (and the father retained the legal authority to nullify it).
There are virgins. There are wives. There are whores/adulteresses/harlots/prostitutes. There are widows. That is it.
Those are the Biblical categories of women.
Of course that brings up the difficult fact that most marriages today aren’t lawful marriages at all. They are adulterous unions.
All that makes me really glad that I’ve only had sex with one woman, that she has only had sex with me, and that her father gave her to me. My wife is actually my wife (18th anniversary next week).
@Dalrock
Did I just trigger you?, LOL, just joking Dalrock!
Going over the comments in here, I couldn’t find where anyone is implicitly saying there’s *”no such thing as fornication”* but i could be wrong?
But I’ll attempt to give my 2 cents on this topic, which is for all ears, I’m not targeting anyone in particular!
In order to establish my foundation, all my quotes are from the KJV, as I believe ALL other versions of the bible are corrupt and non trust worthy (And I say this with deep respect to everyone who differs with me ok, so let’s please not derail this topic with a needless debate
)
The scriptures are very clear indeed , THERE IS such a thing as fornication ( Matt 5:32, Galatians 5:19 etc)….The question then becomes, not does the bible affirm “fornications” existence BUT what is fornication? You can rest assured that 99% of churchians think fornication is sex before marriage, and they hammer that point relentlessly, but is fornication exclusively limited to sex before marriage? NO, of course not….we have a clear example in Jude 1:7 that says that the sin of SODOMY= fornication….so if you’re having anal sex you’re fornicating
We have the clear text in 1st Corinthians 6:15-18 that says that fornication is having sex with prostitutes, ….also having sex with your mother, while you’re married is considered fornication 1st Corinthians 5:1
So while the Greek and the English testify that fornication is a broader term that includes adultery, and other illicit sex acts, we should never make the 2 mistakes that churchians make: 1: that fornication ONLY means sex before marriage, and 2: that the terms fornication and adultery are interchangeable. See 1st Corinthians 6:9 where fornication AND adultery are mentioned in the same verse….the apostle would be speaking redundantly if those 2 terms mean the same thing
The reason that last point is so important is because well meaning Christians look at Matthew 5:28 where Jesus is specifically talking about adultery, and make the baseless claim that Jesus is REALLY talking about fornication, in order to uphold their stupid belief that looking with sexual desire at a women is lusting and a sin. But as you can see here, Mat 5:27 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery”…. Nowhere in the LAW is a commandment given against fornication, Jesus is talking about ADULTERY which is what he is alluding to in Matthew 5, by saying “by them of old time……Context is VERY important here, but the “church” can’t get away with condemning all men for committing the sin of lust if they can somehow force Jesus to talk exclusively about adultery, so they deliberately change what Jesus says, and claim that Jesus is really talking about looking at ANY women with desire a.k.a fornication!…..the mental gymnastics these churchians pull to uphold their false doctrines is mind boggling
Once you understand that 1: Jesus is specifically targeting adultery (which has a very narrow definition in scripture), and NOT the single unattached man, and 2: that lust is NOT necessarily sexual desire/fantasy/porn use etc, and 3: that the definition of lust= TO COVET (covet doesn’t have a sexual component), you will be free to demolish the arguments of those who attempt to emasculate men by claiming that their God given sexual nature is somehow sinful if they look at an attractive sexy woman/and or porn
In conclusion, let it be said that marriage IS God’s safety valve and solution to the problem of fornication, BUT we happen to live in an age where wives/women arbitrarily decide when their husbands get sex.
Try telling an unbeliever, or a churchian woman that she has no right or power to say no to her husband when he needs sex….the only legitimate time a woman can refuse sex is by MUTUAL CONSENT, 1st Corinthians 7:5…notice that it’s not when she decides to consent not to have sex, but it must be by MUTUAL consent.
Every time a wife pulls the “I’m not in the mood, i need to bond emotionally with you before we have sex, i have a headache” excuse she is sinning and tempting her man to commit fornication
The truly sad thing is, marriage is meant to be the place where men get their sexual needs met, but now, it has become the 1 place where a man will not get sex, or it will be rationed by the wife, when SHE feels like it
So is marriage the cause of “sexual immorality” as Dalrock quotes those who claim that?
Nope, it’s not meant to be the cause, but modern day marriage has become an evil tool that women use to weaponize sex and control their man’s access to his God given need for sexual release….It’s about time we hold women, especially wives, to account for denying their husbands access to sex
I for one, believe that the “porn issue” will all but vanish once wives learn to be always available for sex, and not be so stingy
The Question
Tamar understood that the act of sex created the marriage bond. He raped her, but they were now “one flesh”. She didn’t want to marry him, but she realized that they were now one flesh.
@ Bart
That brings up another thing. What makes a prostitute a prostitute and therefore immoral for a man to sleep with? Does she have to actually have to be paid in terms of money or items?
What’s the difference between a woman who bangs 20 men in a day for $200 a pop and a woman who “righteously” bangs 20 men in a day because she enjoys it? Can a Christian man bang a prostitute as long as he’s not an actual John and therefore she’s not acting at that moment as a prostitute? If he fixes a woman’s car after sex, does that constitute an implicit transaction and therefore make her a prostitute?
@ Bart
“Tamar understood that the act of sex created the marriage bond. He raped her, but they were now “one flesh”. She didn’t want to marry him, but she realized that they were now one flesh.”
Except she said that before, not after, he raped her. She was saying “let’s get married before we have sex. If you wait and approach the King, he’ll marry us.” She wasn’t insisting they get married after he raped her.
“theoriginalmrx says: @ Minesweeper:
Your Greek is a bit off here:
– The Greek has γυναῖκα, which, whilst it could refer to a wife, usually just meant a woman simpliciter. If Christ really had meant to refer specifically to already-married women rather than women in general, he’d have used a more specific term, such as ἄλοχον.”
See Mat 5:31 (“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’) Jesus uses the exact same word for and it can only refer to a wife – γυνή gynḗ,
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=g1135
Even simple understanding of english and the wording of the verse shows that its translation is faulty, do you really think Jesus would say ONLY looking at women commits lust in the heart ? Not men looking at men, men looking at girls, boys etc ?
If Jesus was wanting to tell us that someone looking with sexual desire (lust) at someone is adultery in the heart, then he would have said so. To constrain it just to looking at women when its probably the most favourable outcome dosnt make sense.
Ah, but if you look at the picture from *before* she was wed, that’s still fair game. Fap away!
The Question,
The money isn’t the issue. Christians should only have sex with their own wife. Hoe/harlot/prostitute/adulteress are all basically the same thing.
“The Question says: @ Minesweeper
Again, she suggest Ammon go to David have them married. Is she didn’t want to have sex with him then, why would she suggest marriage?”
to quell his desire at that moment and stop her from being raped ?
The Question,
Good point about Tamar saying that before the rape. I’d forgotten that. Here is a likely explanations.
She is just trying to say whatever she can to escape from being raped. She knows David won’t let them marry, but at least saying that might help her get her away.
Also, she might not he thinking straight, given the situation.
“If your right eye causes you to stumble, 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.”
Jesus is not wasting everyone’s time talking about corner cases. He is talking about all the flaws we accept because they’re not *explicitly* called sins … but reflect our sinful heart. Mutilation of our very bodies would be preferable to tolerating anything in us that leads to hell.
Necroking … king of death. Oddly appropriate name for what you’re selling.
Matt 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.
Strong’s Concordance
G991 βλέπω blepo (ɓle’-pō) v.
1. to look at or upon.
2. (by implication) to look for or look about.
3. (thus, by implication) to search for (physically or mentally).
4. (example #1) I looked at the man, and saw (G1492) that he was deep in thought.
5. (example #2) I looked for an answer, but I did not see (G1492) one.
6. (example #3) I looked at the answer, and did not see (G1492) how it fit.
{literally or figuratively; differing from G1492 which connotes comprehension, gaining knowledge rather than simply looking upon it.}
[a primary verb]
KJV: behold, beware, lie, look (on, to), perceive, regard, see, sight, take heed
Compare: G1492, G3700
The Question
You asked –
“what “wicked” thing is she referring to, if not premarital sex with a virgin?”
Wicked thing is (1) incest – sex with your sister is prohibited (2) sex with a virgin violates the authority of the girl’s father. She belongs to her father.
It’s fascinating to me that this is even a topic of discussion, really. Wow.
“Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, “Get up and get out!”
“No!” she said to him. “Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me.””
She didn’t want to be sent away at that point.
You are not thinking straight and you project that onto Tamar.
@Minesweeper
“to quell his desire at that moment and stop her from being raped ?”
Again, if does she not want to have sex with him, what exactly does marriage have to do it? Why is she suggesting he talk to the king about marrying them? What does getting married change, if not the moral context of the act?
Nova
It’s fascinating to me that this is even a topic of discussion, really.
Not All Rabbit Trails Are Like That.
Now that I’m thinking over the Ammon and Tamar situation a little bit, the fact that they’re half-brother and half-sister actually is relevant. Tamar might have been trying to say that, contrary to what was traditionally acceptable, David would have let them get married if Ammon had insisted on it. It was a desperate plea.
“The Question says:
August 9, 2017 at 6:06 pm
Here’s another one, the story of Ammon and Tamar, which can serve as the final lid on this coffin.”
1. Are you and Huntress still dating? Big fan.
2. The Bible actually specifically addresses this as a sexual sin.
Leviticus 18, which lists sexual sins, also says “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.”
Then it goes on later in the chapter “Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.”
See? The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul, The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
making wise the simple. God didn’t feel so cruel as to need to leave to us mortals to decide what’s a sin or not–he spells things out enough that simple folk can understand clearly what he’s saying.
thedeti: A major problem is women refusing sex to their husbands … Another major problem is women marrying men for whom they have no, or very little, sexual attraction,
This highlights a double standard held by women.
* Women have a right to expect great sex from their husbands. If wives aren’t attracted to their husbands, it means the husbands have failed to “man up,” and wives are forgiven for fornicating.
* Men have no right to expect any sex from their wives. If husbands expect sex, it means they’re sex-crazed perverts.
Okay, reading over the comments, why did no one say how incest is forbidden, and God specifically said so when he spelled out the long list of sexual sins? Does no one know that the law specifically banned incest as bad?
Adultery is not
The definition of Adultery does not include “sex with a woman who is not your wife”. That is fornication or uncleaness, still a sin but under a different heading. Adultery is defined in the OT as sex between a married woman and anyone not her husband (a capital offense). It is the spirit of egalitarianism that desires to make men and women alike. Wives were like property, very precious property to be sure, the act of Adultery was not so much a crime of passion, but as the taking from a man something that was his alone and irreplaceable. One of the greatest fears and shame was a cuckold raising another’s offspring unknowingly.
Archefisher,
I mentioned that incest is prohibited. 😊
Now the real question is, will Question reply to his Tamar and Ammon point being addressed and dealt with?
And let’s be real… girl is about to be raped by a half brother. Tamar wanted to go ask David. AKA girl in trouble wanted Daddy to rescue her. Basic human response.
Thank you for this definitive post. It’s a long time in coming.
I’m also waiting for my nigga Toad to get here. There’s gonna be some wild times a-coming!
Heidi:
I’d enjoy a link to the source on this. Not that I doubt your story. I’ve even seen worse, and not infrequently so.
Catholic Answers is, of course, an absolute travesty; but, in another context, it’s the biggest joke on the internet. If you didn’t laugh, you’d just despair…
Boxer
@Dalrock
I truly ask for your forgiveness in advance for my following comment in here, but I have not been able to find out how to contact you in any other way?
I ask for your mercy and lenience, and I hope you can see that I’m being respectful towards you and the commenters in here:
The reason for THIS comment of mine is because I’ve noticed that you have arbitrarily deleted all of my comments except 1…I’ve also noticed that you have deleted @earlthomas786’s comments as well:
Here is your comment policy in full:
“Lastly, I’ll define some general rules for commenting on the blog which apply to men and women. The first three rules below have always been in place, and the fourth is new:
1: Don’t violate copyright law. If there is a question, I’m inclined to err on the side of caution. A link and a paraphrase is ideal.
2: Don’t advocate violence.
3: Avoid changing the topic from the original post, especially early in the comment thread (the first few days or 100 comments after a post is published). After a few days and or 100 comments I’m fairly lenient here so long as the topic change isn’t egregious.
4: Don’t brag about or advocate adultery.
In addition to the above, avoid the following topics unless I specifically make an exception in a post:
Age of consent laws. This is a guaranteed thread derailer. It is ok to reference the existence of these laws provided it is on topic, but don’t do this in such a way that would invite a discussion on what should be the proper age of legal consent.
Marital corporal punishment”……….end quote
I have personally gone over my comments and @earls and I’m completely satisfied that I haven’t broken any of your rules in posting…..so my question to you is, why are you arbitrarily removing comments that don’t violate the terms of use?
This is extremely important to me because I don’t feel comfortable now in posting any comment in the future if it’s going to be consigned to oblivion for no reason whatsoever….your heavy handed approach to deleting posts you disagree with, even though they DON’T break the commenting rules is unfair to say the least and it makes me terrified to have an “opinion” on your blog here, as there seems to be no point in making contributions any more in case it incurss some random, arbitrary displeasure from you.
I expect this behavior from SJW’s, and beta cucks, (Steve Shives lol), who can’t tolerate any view that differs from their own……I didn’t expect this type of behavior from a Christian blog, consisting of adults who are sharing thoughts that are mostly in agreement with each other. Do we really want to start adopting the same type of cowardly behavior that we accuse the Social Justice Warriors of??
I Love your blog Dalrock, I really do……for once in my life I finally found a safe haven of like minded believers who are aware of the damage that feminism has done, and we can come together and share our experiences and thoughts, so I’m begging you, and it is my earnest prayer that you don’t see me as attacking you, but merely offering my puzzlement at why my posts are deleted, and perhaps a tiny bit of constructive criticism of this blog’s seemingly extreme approach to deleting ANYTHING that even remotely sounds suspicious or dares to raise a different opinion
I humbly beseech you as a fellow believer in Christ….please pray about this Dalrock, and please see me as reaching out to you, and if I’ve said or done anything to upset you or offend you I ask for your mercy and forgiveness and lenience…..I’m honestly not trying to disrupt this blog
And now I’m terrified that you’re going to delete this post and then ban me from your blog, just because i dared to question you
@davidvs “There is only one exception. If she is still living in her father’s house, and he does agree to the marriage, the sexual act counts as a “vow” she made that her father can veto. See Exodus 22:16-17 and Numbers 30”
There is no exception. It is an authorized nullification of the marriage. The sexual act results in marriage, but the father can veto the vow and nullify the marriage (divorce) if he is dead set against it. This is completely compatible with Jesus saying that the law of divorce was given due to the hardness of man’s heart, since all divorce is undesirable (God hates divorce) but some is allowed.
Exodus 22 states that the husband must pay the bride price whether or not the marriage is allowed to continue. This is unconditional and the point of the passage. The bride price had to be paid to make her a proper free wife (i.e. not a bond wife or concubine).
@The Question
”Good grief, man. There’s no verse explicitly forbidding adults from having sex with children, either. There’s no age of consent specifically mentioned. Are you going to argue that the Bible permits pedophilia or that it is ambiguous on the subject?”
The holy bible apparently does have implicit prohibition of pedophilia:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm
I was doing research on Islam and found this article among them
It’s fascinating to me that this is even a topic of discussion, really. Wow.
🙂 ..and people chuckle over the “how many steps count as ‘work’?” debates in Mosaic Law…
No.
Secular society altering divorce laws such that a government sanctioned marriage is a minefield that fewer and fewer men want to partake, IS the cause of sexual immorality. Government and “The Devil” have a full partnership when it comes to Earthly marriage.
When Arabic Muslims men are denied women, due to the oldest son marrying multiple wives, the youngest go off on Jihads to get land and females. I wonder how long it will be before Western men throw off Churchian and (((secular))) lies and partake in a crusade, or a Romulus/Remus style wife gathering expedition. When Betas realize how much they are stomped on, the system collapses.
@Novaseeker
Dalrock’s headline mentions this is a post-feminist world, but it is post-Christian, too.
you’ve misapprehended one of AT’s primary points.
he says that sex between a man and a virgin woman cannot be sin … because the act itself is the marriage.
now, it IS possible for the woman’s father to void this marriage ( which is why you typically ask the father before you take the daughter to wife ), but the OT requires that the father make this decision-to-void on the VERY DAY in which he learns that his daughter has slept with a man / married. which, i assume, would make any further contact between those two the “sin” of fornication.
this makes sense of the story of Tamar; she is raped by her half brother ( which is against the Law , incest ) but attempts to stay in the house once he has despoiled her. Amnon throws her out, at which point she becomes distraught. Tamar seems to have thought that she should have been considered Amnon’s bride, even though he had taken her against her will.
the Lawful answer to this specific question would have been for David to
a – void the marriage the day he learned of it
b – punish Amnon, likely by putting him to death for his crime
between fathers voiding ad hoc marriages and situations where husbands have divorced their wives or the husband dies ( such as Ruth ), there is now a supply of non-virgin but unmarried women. these may or may not be taken to wife.
AT’s question is whether it would be permissible to sleep with such a woman outside of a marriage relationship. he says yes.
i find that a rather big pill to swallow. i do think he has the right of it with regards to the marriage of virgins though.
i notice that Ruth ( widowed ) offers herself to Boaz … and that Boaz’s response is to tell her that she did nothing wrong:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ruth+3&version=KJV
OTOH, God doesn’t seem to have had any problems with Samson consorting with Gentile whores. and why that might be is a pretty serious question to answer.
Hi Dalrock,
I like your blog very much good job! What i have to say is not to be critical, rather, I am trying to enhance your post. Remember, the scope of change has been so complete it had effected almost everyone-so please consider this when you read my response
Marriage is not a monolith or single universal practice, rather, it gets its meaning from the accepted norms and practices of a society. So, we know now romantic love has become the primary purpose of sexuality which in turn (re)defined marriage and this became it’s own moral authority. This is called the egalitarian/revised view because it reverses and revised the ideals of the previous conjugal/biblical view. The conjugal view is where childbearing and child-rearing is the primary purpose of sexuality, which defines marriage and becomes the moral authority. So, couples would arrange their roles based on this primary principle-you know, the man provides and supports his wife and she remains at home to welcome any children born. The birth of a child can’t alter the relational fabric of the relationship because they are organized around this ideal. The sad fact is most conservative couples are just referencing back to the former ideal of marriage when they try to defend traditional marriage they don’t practice themselves. For example:When conservative Christians tell a couple they are living in sin and need to get married the couple soon realize that nothing changed in the relationship by getting married. They had nothing to change into because marriage has been redefined to the point it is no different than living together. The marriages of the people telling them to get married function no differently than the couple they told were living in sin. Look around and you will see it everywhere. When the conjugal view was practiced and legally, socially and religiously practiced unmarried couples had to change the nature of their relationship whether they were two virgins, sexually active or expecting to get married
When most conservative folk talk about authority and submission they are also referencing back to a former conjugal marriage but are really practicing the feminist view of marriage. Now everything about this is based on a spiritual authority removed physical reality. Just like romantic love removed physical realities.
In order to have authority a person needs to be responsible for that person or else it would be tyranny. In the same way I can’t be my husbands authority without making him into my slave because I am his dependent and he is responsible to provide for me.
For a man to claim to be his wife’s authority while she has all the same responsibility as the husband and “fixes” herself n order to earn a living and drop off any offspring to a day orphanage is just not what Christianity has ever taught or practiced regarding sex, marriage or authority and submission.
@Rollo Tomassi
27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[a] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[b] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Whenever this topic comes up everyone pretends like Jesus never said this.
Much respect for Rollo, but I have to disagree with this. The modern church leadership actually knows that passage quite well. I know this because I’ve heard them repeat it many times, usually during a sermon about how all the men today are looking at porn, and how that is due to the evil and wickedness in their hearts that they must repent of immediately. In all honesty, I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve heard a preacher give that tired speech.
But the devil is in the details: While pastors love to rail against lust and porn and “objectification of women” they tend to make be a bit more . . . reluctant to address the adultery that they’re supposed to lead to. I already mentioned that I’ve heard many a church give an anti-porn message. But in the last ten years that I regularly attended one I can’t recall even once hearing a sermon against divorce. Or cheating on one’s spouse. Or cutting them off from sex. Hell, there are even pastors now that openly say that they want to avoid condemning any of that, because with so much sex happening outside of marriage they don’t want nonbelievers who hear them (and whom are often female) to think that they’re beyond redemption.
The modern church establishment is quick to hammer on lust and porn (particularly towards young men), but they’ll usually say that they do this because those are the “root causes” of even worse sins. I might take this a bit more seriously if they were occasionally willing to speak out against those sins that are “even worse.” But that would cost them a lot more social capital, so they won’t. It’s yet another reason why the church today isn’t much more than a real-life version of that old joke people used to tell about the Southern Baptists: Do you know why they’re against pre-marital sex? Because it could lead to dancing!
There is a three volume set of books by Martin Madan recently re-published that are an excellent insight into this subject:
Thelyphthora, or A Treatise on Female Ruin.
Here’s a link to volume 1
https://www.amazon.com/Thelyphthora-Treatise-Female-Ruin-Consequences/dp/0982537506/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1502352826&sr=8-15&keywords=Martin+Madan
In volume 2 he continues with his marriage by consummation model and contrasts the problems that occur when marriage laws don’t sync with the Genesis model. He critiques both the Council of Trent and the Marriage Act of 1753.
These books are a bit difficult to read because of the olde english, he uses the old ‘s’ it looks like an ‘f”. Words like wise look like wife. But well worth the effort.
For those familiar with the previous discussions here, its like reading Toad but without the BS.
In the Bible, marriage is between two men. Look it up. The answer to the riddle is this: not gay marriage. Marriage, as used in the Bible, is a covenant or alliance between two families. Sex with a virgin is a literal “bris” or covenant, as proven by the blood on the bedsheet that is proof of her virginity. A man can “take” a woman, a woman can go and belong to a man, but the “marriage” is an alliance or merger of families. Don’t have time to pull up all the references and write a long treatise on this. Just use your Strong’s Concordance, you’ll see the truth of the matter in seconds.
Since marriage is a covenant between two men (or two families), poking a virgin doesn’t create a marriage. It does create a bond between them. But not a marriage. Only if papa consents is there a marriage. And consent or no, the man has to pay the marriage price. But may not get a marriage out of it.
I’m mostly a lurker here these days, bit I felt the need to drop by with a hearty “amen” on this post. It’s really well done! 🙂
Also, in addition the Tamar story, look at the story of Dinah and Shechem. Shechem took her virginity, then he said to his father “go, get her for me as a wife”, and so his father went to her father to negotiate a marriage. Ergo, she was no longer a virgin, but wasn’t marriaged. And for treating her like a whore, her brothers slaughtered the entire city.
@Son Of Liberty
Is “looking” the instrumental or causative cause of sin in Matthew 5:28?.
You have argued wrongly that “LOOKING” is the causative cause of sin in a person’s heart……But that’s NOT what Matthew 5:28 says, so I urge you to read the whole verse and the 1 proceeding it in it’s entirety.
Looking is not the sin here, as it is connected with a conjunction: “to lust after”….It’s the lusting after which is the sin that Jesus is talking about…….I reject categorically the churchian’s definition of the word “lust” i.e sexual desire/fantasy/being horny/porn use etc and I insist on the biblical definition which is to COVET….Romans 7:7……”for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet”.
Tell me, when you are coveting your neighbor’s lawnmower is there any sexual desire or component to it?…..of course not, so why do churchians suddenly make “lust” a sexual thing when it concerns coveting thy neighbor’s wife??
Also Jesus is talking about breaking a particular law, known as ADULTERY…..in order for a man to commit the sin of adultery, he has to transgress what the LAW says about it….For e.g, if you’re a single man and you have sex with an unattached SINGLE woman have you committed adultery?……now be honest, have you?……Of course not, and God will NOT hold you to account and condemn you for committing adultery when you and I both know that no sin of adultery has taken place, you may or may not have committed “fornication”, but you certainly haven’t committed adultery……God defines HIS own terms in the scriptures, look at Leviticus 20:10 to see how God defines adultery, and you will see that is NOT how the world or churchians defines it.
This is why churchians are fanatical in trying to change Jesus’s words in Matthew 5:28 and force the text to say Fornication when it doesn’t say that….they do this so they can have false ammunition to accuse others of sinning when they’re not
If it helps to see things more clearly, look at the term “lust after” as NOT so much the desire to do something, but the DECISION to do something…….This is why sin starts in the heart of man, before it’s acted out in reality
Already I see in the comments here that I’m accused of splitting hairs, or advocating a teaching of DEATH (LOL), based on my name sake, but all I’ve done is to the best of my ability to not……… “nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God”. 2nd Corinthians 4:2
I simply refuse to change what the word of God says, in order to uphold a “pet theory or doctrine”
Jesus was talking about ADULTERY in Matthew 5, if he wanted to talk about fornication, he had the word πορνεία available to him but he didn’t, he used the word moicheuō instead
Some of you guys still trying to say sex is marriage? Ugh. I’d love to see your scripture for that… Not to mention, in the old test., a man who seduces a virgin has to marry her. You can’t marry a woman you just married. Don’t yoy think scripture would kindly say sex is marriage?
And yes, church can be wrong. Baptists still preqch that drinking an alcoholic beverage is immoral, simple example.
One point I saw A. Toad make repeatedly is that in OT terms, sexual intercourse with a virgin IS marriage to her, so not fornication at all. Fornication and prohibition of prostitution are largely NT concepts, although 100% aligned with the OT; it’s just that they are hammered on more explicitly in the NT than in the OT. As Dalrock points out, they are explicitly advised against in Proverbs, just for a start.
On the Levitical laws concerning marriage, those were laws God was willing to see His people follow. They may have been God’s preferred model, or those laws may have been given because of the hardness of their hearts. Either way, the Bible assumes marriage everywhere else, so those laws are whar we have for definition.
@bob k. mando “you’ve misapprehended one of AT’s primary points. he says that sex between a man and a virgin woman cannot be sin … because the act itself is the marriage.”
AT says that sex between man and virgin is not marriage if the father does not approve. He treats this as an exception, so there is no unequivocal rule that sex with a virgin is marriage. He doesn’t view the father’s annulment as divorce. It is simply as if the marriage never existed. There is no voiding of a marriage because the marriage never happened because the woman was not legally able to enter into a marriage agreement. My response to that is the same as I gave to davidvs in my comment above.
It’s an absurd loophole where a woman can lose her virginity without becoming married or sinning. Dalrock missed that when he said non-Christians have to take care of virginity before sex is free-for-all. Christian men can have no-strings-attached-sex with virgins too, so long as the father of the woman doesn’t approve of their marriage.
@archerwfisher “Some of you guys still trying to say sex is marriage?”
I found it easier, when discussing this with AT, to just presume this point for the sake of argument. Since AT’s entire position rests on this premise, it is best to just go with it. Dalrock does this implicitly in his post.
“a man who seduces a virgin has to marry her. You can’t marry a woman you just married.”
If a marriage is created by sex, that marriage is a real thing. However, a father can refuse it and end the marriage. This is seen in Ammon and Tamar (See bob k. mando’s Lawful answer) and Exodus 22. “Marrying a woman you just married” means making it official (i.e. getting the father’s stamp of approval). As Mycroft Jones pointed out “In the Bible, marriage is between two men.” The key to the riddle are the two facets to marriage in the Bible: (1) the one-flesh joining between the man and woman; and (2) the legal joining between men. The former is done by God and the latter is done by man.
This might be of interest, at least for Catholics, on the question of what brings a Christian marriage into existence:
Would it not be amusing if 1 Corinthians 7 was a partial sentence quoted to begin the response? If the full sentence were (this is Corinth after all): “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman but to boff his buddy” then St. Paul’s response would have quite a different twist.
But I know you know the full context of the letter St. Paul was responding to; plus, St. Paul, knowing his written word would be idolized down the ages, would never have wittingly or unwittingly chopped a sentence. That would have been non-inerrant.
Further reading on the papist perspective:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/the-curious-case-of-matthew-199/
@necroking48
As I pointed out on the previous thread when you made the same assertion, you are missing the point. Matthew 5:21-30 is about the nature of sin. Sin starts in our hearts, not when we act. Jesus wasn’t just talking about murder and adultery. He was talking about all sin. He just used murder and adultery as examples to illustrate the nature of sin*. So fornication is covered.
See also Matt 15:
Fantasizing about illicit sex is itself illicit. This only leaves the question of whether the sex being fantasized about is illicit. As I demonstrated in this post, the answer is yes.
*I don’t think that Christ was redefining physical adultery in this segment any more than He was redefining physical murder. But the wording does leave open some room to interpret it the other way. Unless this is being used to justify divorce, however, I don’t see where it matters much.
OT Fornication-
1.Do not have sexual relations with thy father (Leviticus 18:7).
2.Do not have sexual relations with thy mother (Leviticus 18:7).
3.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s wife (Leviticus 18:8).
4.Do not have sexual relations with thy sister (Leviticus 18:9).
5.Do not have sexual relations with thy son’s daughter (Leviticus 18:10).
6.Do not have sexual relations with thy daughter’s daughter (Leviticus 18:10).
7.Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of thy father’s wife (Leviticus 18:11).
8.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s sister (Leviticus 18:12).
9.Do not have sexual relations with thy mother’s sister (Leviticus 18:13).
10.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s brother (Leviticus 18:14).
11.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s brother’s wife (Leviticus 18:14).
12.Do not have sexual relations with thy daughter-in-law (Leviticus 18:15).
13.Do not have sexual relations with thy brother’s wife (Leviticus 18:16).
14.Do not have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
15.Do not have sexual relations with a woman and her son’s daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
16.Do not have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter’s daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
17.Do not have sexual relations with thy wife in addition to her sister, as rivals (Leviticus 18:18).
18.Do not have sexual relations with a menstruous woman (Leviticus 18:19).
19.Do not mix seed by sexual intercourse with thy neighbour’s wife (Leviticus 18:20).
20.Man can not have sexual intercourse with another male (term: religious male?) (Leviticus 18:22).
21.Man can not have sexual relations with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).
22.Woman can not have sexual relations with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).
Anything outside of this is not considered to be fornication from the OT perspective.
Matthew 5:27-28 has bad translations of “lust” and “woman” that should be translated as “covet” and “wife.” Another post pointed this out.
According to many of the posters here, the only way to avoid sexual sin is to encourage pedophilic matrimony-starting at the ages of 12 to 14.
Also, remember what St. Augustine said (considered to be one of the most anti-sensual Church Fathers by some): “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.” – De ordine 2.4.
TL:DR – Biblical marriage is as dead as slavery. Fuck whores.
DC: Nope. Relations with prostitutes are condemned in the OT (Prov 23:27 and other place in Proverbs) and 1 Corinthians 6:16. The fact that some men had relations with them in the OT doesn’t justify your position.
The loopholes and rationalizations continue. I’m waiting for the bestiality apologists to jump in here Though it’s explicitly forbidden, I’m sure some would-be Hebrew scholar will set me straight.
1 Corinthians 6 never made sense to me. Sex with a prostitute isn’t marriage and doesn’t create “one flesh.” Jesus said marriage makes one flesh, not sex in accord with the OT.
“All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.” This statement makes no sense unless St. Paul is talking about venereal disease. How does having sex sin against your own body? STDs?
Much of what St. Paul says only makes sense when you consider the Corinthians were still going to the Temples for feasts and whores (see 1 Corinthians 8 for what he says about food dedicated to pagan gods/goddesses). And, when St. Paul talks about the body/body of Christ he’s talking about the new Christian church.
Therefore, it appears that St. Paul doesn’t want the body of Christ infiltrated with whores like the pagan temples. The woman from 1 Corinthians 5 would be an example.
@Necroking48
I haven’t deleted any comments from either of you. I just checked the spam folder and don’t see any there as well. Sometimes the spam filter goes awry, but it doesn’t seem to have happened here. Perhaps it was a network issue?
Feel free to re post your missing comments.
@MKT Proverbs 23:27 27For a harlot is a deep pit And an adulterous woman is a narrow well. 28Surely she lurks as a robber, And increases the faithless among men.…
Your argument from Proverbs makes it seem that harlots are a minor sin, but adultery is the much greater danger/sin.
See Proverbs 6:26 –
“For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread, but another man’s wife preys on your very life.”
No one here agrees that having sex with prostitutes is moral or even wise, but it gets a hell of a lot worse than that in the Bible!!! If the readers here want to marry up a whore rather than just fuck them, be my guest.
Also Proverbs 5:15-17:
15 Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well.
16 Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
17 Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for strangers with you.
Isn’t this referring to pimping out your wife/wife swapping? THIS was the big no-no for early Christians. See the sin of the Nicolaitans from Revelations.
I agree that Prov. 6:26 says adultery is a lot more dangerous than hooking up with a prostitute. However, the fact that Proverbs warns of prostitutes and wayward women elsewhere (it’s a major theme in the book) as well as Paul’s admonishments in the NT are more than enough to condemn the practice. Again, our goal should be holiness, not “this verse says X is worse than Y, so I’ll just do Y.”
@MKT –
True. Perfection is the goal. But, how do you keep Christian men chaste until they are ready to marry at 25 or 30?
Those of you saying pre-marital sex was not condemned in the OT are wrong. It is condemned in
Deuteronomy 22:21, in the case of a woman who is sexually promiscuous prior to marriage:
“she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.”
Those of you also saying sex with a virgin is “marriage” need to read up on actual marriage customs in ancient Israel. It is not just having sex. In order to have a marriage, you had to have a contract / agreement between families, which usually involved a payment:
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/
Consummation of the marriage was vital, but sex alone was not considered to be marriage. Consider Deut 22 again.
Not to intrude, Son of Liberty if you have a blog I would like to read it. You brought up many things I have been tracking for years re: genetics and chimeras and diet.
Thanks.
@Damn Crackers
I think some commenters really are saying this is allowed. If not with prostitutes, then with unmarried non virgin women. You are right that in the OT adultery was punished by death, so the earthly consequences were very different. Either way, the point of the post stands. As Christians we have clear instructions from 1 Cor 7 on how to handle sexual temptation. The claim that sex with unmarried women is permitted not only goes against that clear instruction, but turns Paul’s explanation upside down.
Check out the entire Proverb. Verses 1-14 are all about the need to stay away from wayward women. Then 15-20 present the correct way to focus sexual desire, and 21-23 remind of God’s judgment of those who don’t obey. Clearly it isn’t ok to share your wife, but the message here is that when you have sex with wayward women you are spreading your seed outside of your marriage, and also sharing the wayward women with other men.
“True. Perfection is the goal. But, how do you keep Christian men chaste until they are ready to marry at 25 or 30?”
Prayer, discipline, finding other profitable things to do with your time (exercise, business, serving in the church, etc.) Accountability can be good if you can find someone trustworthy. I never said it was easy, but really, are we just slaves to our desires and hormones? If we can’t overcome that, there’s not much hope for other parts of our lives. Plenty of other men do this. Even pagans on “no FAP” threads at Reddit are successful.
@Dalrock
I offer you my deepest apologies Dalrock….I just checked, and you haven’t deleted ANY of my comments….All those ones I thought were deleted were over in your other thread. I truly feel like such an idiot…..Navigating through wordpress is quite hard sometimes
Feel free to delete THIS comment though after you’ve read it lol
Before shooting my mouth off in the future I promise to get my facts right first *facepalm*
Thanks for allowing me to post in your blog,….the comment section has been amazing on this topic!
@”Damn Crackers says: August 10, 2017 at 9:31 am
OT Fornication-
20.Man can not have sexual intercourse with another male (term: religious male?) (Leviticus 18:22).”
Your post and the translations used are correct for your post, the “strange” exception is Lev 18:22, the hebrew dosnt actually say that, it says
From ISA2 : “and-with male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman abhorrence she”
I would paraphrase that as : “its an abhorrence for her if you have sex in her bed with a man”
Lev18 has no compulsion to hide people having intercourse with animals, why would it not use the same wording here ? Is it abit like Mat5:28, a cultural translation that we all assumed to be true that actually says something else ?
disclaimer: the idea of “lie-ing” down with a man in any bed is pretty gross idea to me (womans or not), I’d rather have splinters put under my finger nails. But still, is this another cultural rewording to fit what we want it to say ?
The question becomes if Christian men have to remain chaste from 15 to 30, why should they then get married after that? It’s a dead end argument. You made them make the sacrifice and quash their sexuality for 15 to 20 years and now you want them to get married and support a family? Is that right?
Either get women to marry younger or kiss marriage goodbye. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you expect men to kill their sexual urges for the most sexually trying time of their lives, as the morally uptight here do, then you cannot just expect them to turn it back on and nor should they, they’ve already conquered their urges and now should follow Paul’s teaching on the subject. That is what the Bible states, argue against it but Paul says to marry if you burn with passion. Men can’t get married when they burn so they are left to squelch their sexual appetite; at which point Paul informs them to not get married.
That is all.
Yessir. Those who hold that non-marital sex with whores is licit–because whores were “common-law married” (by deflowering), but are now “common-law divorced” (by abandonment) and so fair game for unmarried sex–are really cuckold fetishists who want the option to be cycled by lots of women.
@Boxer
Thank you. My initial take was the same as Novaseeker’s above. But as the claims continued the need to make a dedicated post instead of arguing piecemeal became obvious.
He must be busy. I keep checking the spam bin to make sure he isn’t stuck there.
@necroking48
No worries. Thanks for letting me know. I did find some comments by commenters in the spam bin when I first published this post and let them out. Some of them were from a week or more back. So it does sometimes happen.
@Dalrock – Thanks for your answer. I think this is one of the biggest issues in Christianity. Many of these arguments would disappear if Biblical marriage at a young age actually was the norm.
DC, since Doug Wilson has been a topic of discussion here recently, here’s an article he did on why men should marry young…and got a lot of flak for it.
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/7-reasons-young-men-marry-23rd-birthday.html
All, re my comment above which surely be enraging for most, Im not an apologist, merely a seeker for truth and when I find translated scripture that differs from the original it “Piques My Interest”
another bizarre example is communion, whats said in every church in the land “Jesus said do this in remembrance of me” is actually the wrong way round, what Jesus said was “Do this so I remember you!”
I really wonder why some very simple things are translated untruthfully. If we don’t understand it, it should be marked as such, rather than just replacing it with something that we prefer.
@ those who say Matt 5:28 is only speaking about Adultery (strictly, unless a married woman is involved, its any else but adultery).
how is the sin of sleeping with a prostitute categorized? Where does watching pornography lie? What kind of sin is it? Is it just “coveting”?
Isn’t what Jesus was really addressing in Matt 5:28 was not that physical action of the sin but a sin being charged to you if its in your heart? If you wanted to steal something (i guess it falls in coveting here) but didn’t, you are charged with the sin of “stealing” (technically coveting). If you want to kill someone/angry at someone, you committed the sin of murder in God’s eyes. That is the standard that God uses, he judges the inside (the outside/actions too but he is interested on the inside, the root). His law is what our actions should look like when our heart is right. It does not necessarily mean that when our actions are right, our hearts will be also. Not to say its strictly one way, but I would argue the effectiveness of Heart to action rather than action to heart.
Let me put it in this way with Romans 9:30-32
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness ,have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.
Are we not playing modern day Pharisees when we are looking at the rule/letter of law rather than the spirit (through faith) of the law?
Can we really say to our selves that we are pursuing this discussion in faith? Or is it closer to our desire to circumvent the law with “details” and a narrow interpretation so that we can attempt to make a “case” so that we can interpret the law to mean whatever we want? or at least excuse our behavior?
I do see another angle to this discussion. A common denominator that I have picked up while reading the comments is that some commenter dislike how Matt 5:28 has been used as a weapon to force and control mens behavior while not being equally applied to women (as do I). As in, Matt 5:28 has traditionally been used in modern churchian settings to make it appear that mens sexual sin is so evil that women’s sin in comparison is less, so much less (or man is so evil) that she might as well be a pure goddess and therefore, thus treated like one.
Given the abuse of using Matt 5:28 in churchianity, I can understand why commenter would strictly hold to Matt 5:28 to mean involvement with married woman only. I do agree that men have a desire for women, and that is not a bad thing. It isn’t necessarily a good thing in all circumstances either.
Ok, adultery is strictly with a married woman, so Churchians, stop using Matt 5:28 as a blanket for all sexual sin falling in adultery, but isnt the flesh wanting to engage in carnal fleshly activities? When you are watching porn, an its not adultery (ok, you have established that as long as the image isnt really married in real life or maybe its hentai) are you living by the spirit? are you living in faith?
Its like you are right (commenters position that all sexual sins do not fall under adultery) but wrong at the end of the day (commenters unspoken position that adultery is the only sexual sin you can commit).
Once again he got flak because he places the expectations on men and will not focus on the problem of women not getting married young. Just who is a young man meant to marry? Old women in their thirties? One of the other reasons he got flak was because saying men should get married young, well obviously women would have to get married young too; and the women were having none of that. Back to square one I’m afraid. Lol!
Remember, you are speaking to someone who looked for most of my late teens and most of my twenties without success. Only after I established myself was there any interest, at which point I realise they’re not interested in me at all, only my resources. Young women simply do not care to marry you and would only do it once you’ve put in the hard work and once they’ve had their fun
Once again, the elephant in the room is the delaying tactic by women to extend courtship indefinitely and to provide as little sex as possible within marriage but free sex outside of it.
Damn Crackers @ 9:38 am:
“Also, remember what St. Augustine said (considered to be one of the most anti-sensual Church Fathers by some): “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.””
Which came first, the harlot or the lust? This is not a chicken-and-egg argument; the lust came first, that’s *why* you went to the harlot. That was Christ’s point. The specific expression of the impulse doesn’t matter; refusing to restrain the impulse does.
It isn’t hard unless you want it to be.
…
feministhater @ 10:40 am:
“The question becomes if Christian men have to remain chaste from 15 to 30, why should they then get married after that? It’s a dead end argument. You made them make the sacrifice and quash their sexuality for 15 to 20 years and now you want them to get married and support a family? Is that right?”
This is likely the main reason guys don’t learn Game. A decade or two of “don’t you dare touch or even look at that girl parading her spandex-clad body in front of you” conditioning is a crushing burden to overcome. Having been through that myself, I would no longer marry even if God Himself swore that unicorn would be loyal. I only want to spike that door shut and walk away.
Those Goddamn Churchians. They whine incessantly about how porn “corrupts” a guy then demand his sex drive be strangled outright. That’s why we’re having these debates, men don’t want to end up emotionally castrated if there’s any chance of alternative.
@Necroking48:
I get where you’re coming from on the matter of sexualizing covetousness; however, the “sexualizing” of a wife it is not a product of churchians but is bound up in the nature of a wife. To covet anything is to illegitimately desire it, either to use it or to be admired for possessing it. If you covet a lawn mower it’s because a) you want to cut your grass with it; b) you want to be seen or imagined owning it. Why else would you covet your neighbor’s wife if not for the use of her and/or for the admiration of others, both of which are sexual?
Other thoughts:
Matthew 5:28 is an example of adultery, not a definition. To those who self-righteously tell themselves, “I am righteous because I don’t commit adultery”, Jesus says, in effect, “By God’s standard you DO commit adultery. If you are righteous by your own standard, then your standards are wrong, and you demonstrate that you don’t know how to judge yourself.”
Pedantry fails when you try to ram the square peg of biblical categories into the round hole of modern taxonomies. I.e., whales are mammals in our modern classification system, but it’s entirely reasonable for anyone, book-learnin’ school or no, to call a whale a fish. You cannot say that there does not exist some system of classification somewhere, where a whale is a fish.
Example, someone asserted above that “pre-marital sex” was not prohibited in Scripture. You can’t prohibit something if there’s no word for it, and you can only prohibit what you do have a word for. It’s a principle that a law applies to only what it applies to. It is not explicitly prohibited to covet your neighbor’s daughter, only under the blanket prohibition not to covet any thing that is thy neighbor’s. So your neighbor’s daughter may be your wife, in which case desire all you want, it’s not coveting.
Adultery is prohibited on its own. Coveting is prohibited separately, so no one can claim that the ten commandments cover outward actions only. So, while Jesus did not add to the law, he set, as he was wont to do, both a higher (perhaps even impossible) standard and a greater freedom at the same time, to do right.
I don’t mean to change the subject, but this is hilarious –
woman sues elite dating agency after a string of disastrous matches
Ms Daggett, a 62-year-old divorced mother of four, was introduced to a procession of incompatible suitors, according to documents filed in a federal court.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/money-cant-buy-you-love-woman-sues-elite-dating-agency-after-a-string-of-disastrous-matches/ar-AApOpd4?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp
DC, since Doug Wilson has been a topic of discussion here recently, here’s an article he did on why men should marry young…and got a lot of flak for it.
MKT —
The main problem with that article is what Wilson leaves out (often this is the problem with his writings): the main driver of late marriage is actually women who want to have their education and career established before they marry, and that takes until the later 20s/around 30 to achieve. That is more of a driver than what Wilson actually discusses there. Young women don’t want to marry at 23 or 24 any longer, they want to have flexibility to finish their education where they want, and then move where they want to start their career, before being interested in “settling down”. Most Christian women follow this path, too. Why this is left out of any discussion of marital ages can really only be the result of a gross oversight, or the willing failure to see what is really going on with people under 30 today.
I do enjoy discussions like this…because they need to be talked about more. There’s a lot of rationalization going around trying to cover up several sexual sins.
They follow the feminist script. They only see the male side of sins. Try debating a feminist on modesty. They’ll tear you limb from limb suggesting a woman should wear modest clothing so as to not entice lust in men.
Late to the game, as usual,
But let’s think about it. At Creation, “let’s make man in our image”. What image? Why does God care about sex. Because it’s about his image. Why does sex feel so good? Because it’s a glimpse into what it will be like in heaven. That whole church the bride thing. Is it significant, that out of all the species in the world, how many mate face to face?
We are an image of God when we are having sex, God cannot be unfaithful to himself, so when we as images of him, have sex inside a faithful relationship, we are keeping true to his image.
God cares about what comes out of those organs, both male and female. He looks long range. He is looking for Godly offspring.
OK, I’ll be the a-hole here. What about Biblical concubines?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilegesh
Just who is a young man meant to marry? Old women in their thirties?
That is exactly what Jim Gay-ratty recommends in his ‘Ward Cleaver is a Stud!’ video. Jim Gay-ratty himself married a single mother who might be older than him, and admits that he lives under threatpoint every day. His solution? Claim that threatpoint is a good thing!
“A decade or two of “don’t you dare touch or even look at that girl parading her spandex-clad body in front of you” conditioning is a crushing burden to overcome.”
This reminds of some SJW-Lite Christian females blogging about yoga pants. They say things like “there are starving people in the world (or) men are looking at porn that’s supporting sex trafficking…and you want to worry about my yoga pants?!”
As if they two are related. When I saw that, I was very tempted to reply “So showing every curve, bump and crevice on your body is cool and your right, but as soon as you get objectified it’s all icky and porn-like…except part of you enjoys being objectified by men and envied by other women (assuming you’re thin and fit). Otherwise, you wouldn’t wear skin-tight clothes. You can’t have it both ways, sweet cheeks.”
But I didn’t want to argue with her and 50 more snowflakes just like her.
@Caspar Reyes: Why else would you covet your neighbor’s wife if not for the use of her and/or for the admiration of others, both of which are sexual?
At one time women were productive: the wife of another may make a fairly tasty yogurt and I may covet that capability for myself; she may weave a fine cloth that would robe my dashing self; etc. Not that women are really productive these days.
The prohibition against using (or coveting) the reproductive function of a woman is covered under “no adultery.”
Of course they aren’t…but there are many women who are well versed in the deflection tactic because they have no legit comeback. They instictively know yoga pants are immodest and will give them plenty of male attention if they have an attractive shape…otherwise they wouldn’t bring up porn or starving children. You got to keep them on point.
Let’s clarify Matthew 5:28. Covetousness is a key point that really needs to be understood, and so far noone has really gotten the concept right.
First, the LXX. The Bible was translated into Greek, and is called the LXX/Septuagint. By using the LXX, we can see how various Hebrew words are equivalent to Greek words… as understood by the translators. LXX Greek is different from regular “pure” Greek. There are a lot of Hebraisms in it.
Second, the New Testament. it is written in Greek, but it isn’t written in regular Greek, it is written in the same Hebraic Greek as the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.
So, if you want to argue about the meanings of the Greek words, you have to follow them back into the Old Testament to see which Hebrew words they are equivalent to. Because Hebraic/LXX Greek is a dialect.
Now, back to the three essential words: “woman”, “fornication”, and “lust”. We can discuss the difference between “divorce” and “put away” another time.
Woman: as in Hebrew, the word generally does mean wife. There are more specific words for young unmarried women. It doesn’t HAVE to mean “wife”, but it generally does.
Fornication: it isn’t just talking about adultery, but about any immoral sexual act. For the definitions of immoral sexual acts, see Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Lust: this is the big one. A previous commenter was correct, Jesus was talking about Coveting, not “desire”. Most people understand coveting as desire, but this is wrong. I had to search long to find a good word study on coveting. Did you know the word only occurs about 4 times in the Hebrew Bible? And the context it occurs in makes it very hard to pinpoint a clear definition. However, the context does allow us to know this much: coveting is more than just feelz and desire. Coveting is not “lust”. It is something that leads a) to action and b) to your target being alienated from his property. Coveting is sneaky and can be hard to detect, that is why it is the last of the ten commandments. Coveting isn’t theft; it is more like the envious person who says “if I can’t have it, you can’t either!” When you covet, you prevent your neighbor from enjoying the usage of his property, and there is an element of envy (or blind selfish desire) involved.
If you covet your neighbors wife, you may never lay a finger on her, but Jesus is right, it is sexual immorality. Why? Because forbidden explicitly in the ten commandments.
When you understand this about coveting, you can see that white knights are guilty of covetousness, and need to be slapped down hard. There used to be an English Common Law against “Alienation of Affection”. Actual actionable tort. This is just a fancy phrase for Biblical coveting. This concept needs to come back in a big way, our whole society is suffering from it.
Well that is one of two outcomes that is brought about living under threatpoint. It’s a crazy outlook to any reasonable person…but women can make men think and do unreasonable things.
@SJB:
Your neighbor’s wife can legitimately give you yogurt or sell you cloth. And “thou shalt not commit adultery” does not cover “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”. Coveting never put anyone’s paternity into question.
So when Jesus says “If you look at a woman so as to covet her”, the looking at her is not the coveting. The looking at her is a step towards the actual coveting. But once you make the intention in your heart to break up her neighbors marriage or otherwise get the woman to be disloyal, you are already guilty.
“That is exactly what Jim Gay-ratty recommends in his ‘Ward Cleaver is a Stud!’ video. ”
Who is this? I don’t keep up with either mainstream or Christian pop culture. I assume that’s where this guy is known.
@9767
Sex with a virgin being marriage is centered right on Genesis 2, where the language certainly implies that it is sex that glues the man and woman together, not a social marriage construct, which isn’t even mentioned. There isn’t even a mention of the woman’s father and his involvement in the process. That joining together is something that no man can separate, even if there is a legal divorce. (I have also never seen a linguistic argument that shows that Genesis 2 doesn’t apply to all woman, virgin or non-virgin, which has great bearing on this discussion.)
Even the marriage customs of ancient Israel required physical consummation for the marriage to be completed. While betrothal was treated as marriage from a legal and social standpoint, it wasn’t consummated. If betrothal was considered marriage, why would sex be required? Without sex, the marriage was incomplete, pending, or in progress. The correct procedure was a social contract followed by consummation. Many of the laws pertaining to sex prior to legal marriage have to do with remedies for going about the process in the wrong way (seduction, rape, etc.).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not aware of a single instance of marriage in the Bible that did not involve sex as its culminating act. Whether concubinage or full marriage, it was made complete through sex. There are many different ways to enter into a marriage, but they all share this common thread.
So the notion is that sex absolutely creates marriage, but it is not enough for a proper marriage. There is also a social and legal component that must be followed.
@DC – “OK, I’ll be the a-hole here. What about Biblical concubines?
I don’t see the issue under the framework I’ve laid out above. Concubinage is marriage too. It’s just a different social construct version of marriage, but the underlying one-flesh-marriage is the same. I’ve already suggested that Exodus 22:16-17 is about preventing the woman from becoming a concubine by forcing the man to comply with the social and legal marriage construct.
@Mycroft Jones
The corruption of the heart goes all the way down. You can’t scrape away enough layers to get to motives that are completely pure without the taint of selfishness, or greed, or illegitimate lust, or something.
Matt 5:28 is an exhortation to examine your own motives and recognize that however you draw the line, there will always be some standard by which you are sinful. It’s part of being a Christian–recognizing the need to be saved from this body of death.
@Caspar Reyes: yes, the persons and animals in the commandment can be licitly co-opted. However, wife is listed for the productive capability — as are the other persons and animals — rather than her reproductive capability. Thus coveting your neighbor’s wife is not solely sexual–you can certainly covet both her productive and reproductive capability but it’s your choice.
Well I’m going to bring in some scary Catholic church canon law…but a case for annulment is if the marriage was never consumated. Sex and marriage do in fact go together…which is why a lot of sexual sins is when it gets farther away from this relationship.
@SJB
I’ll concede that one might covet a man’s wife for her table, but one is more likely to covet the maidservant for that. Insofar as you can only covet what you can’t legitimately have, I stand by my answer to Necroking. The lack of a sexual motive in the coveting of a wife would be an aberration. The office of a wife is sexual in nature.
Hi Dalrock. In your reply to @The Question, (Aug 9th, 2:55 p.m.) your last line reads:
“the fundamental teaching on marriage, holding it as the cause of sexual morality instead of the way to avoid it”
I suppose you meant “holding it as the cause of sexual immorality…”
I always look forward to your excellent articles. Keep ’em coming.
[D: Thank you, and you are correct. I’ve fixed it now.]
@Dota
I haven’t seen that article, but my wife showed me the Daily Mail article on the same thing. The comments at the Daily Mail are brutal.
In summary of this thread, I think the best quote of Mark Driscoll’s career wraps it up:
“What does that mean in the Greek, Pastor Mark?” You can always tell a rebellious evangelical. They do word studies. They try to go to the Greek and figure out if it perhaps means something else.”
Damn Crackers @ 11:47 am:
“OK, I’ll be the a-hole here. What about Biblical concubines?”
PokeSalad’s Law, that’s what.
…
Derek Ramsey @ 12:24 pm:
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not aware of a single instance of marriage in the Bible that did not involve sex as its culminating act.”
King David & Abishag in 1 Kings 1.
Shocking part is the comments with the most green arrows and the comments with the most red arrows say just about the same thing.
In summary of this thread, I think the best quote of Mark Driscoll’s career wraps it up:
“What does that mean in the Greek, Pastor Mark?” You can always tell a rebellious evangelical. They do word studies. They try to go to the Greek and figure out if it perhaps means something else.”
Yep–loophole theology. Not to mention that much of the Bible (especially Proverbs and Paul’s epistles) is about wisdom, holiness and doing what’s honoring to God–not just every possible thing that might be legal if my shaky Greek is right. Those trying to get away with pron, prostitutes and pre-marital action miss all of the greater commands and broader messages.
ys quotes Mark How Dare You Driscoll
You can always tell a rebellious evangelical.
But you can’t tell him much. Eh, Mark?
Man, the irony is thick sometimes.
@Gunner Q – “King David & Abishag in 1 Kings 1.”
Much thanks. I had forgotten that. I’ll have to give this more thought. Obviously unconsummated marriages existed. Anyone attempting to say that sex is equivalent to marriage has to deal with that issue. And the case of Abishag is certainly a problem for that strict view. Clearly David had a legal/social marriage, for she was his concubine. Adonijah wanted to make a political claim to the throne by claiming David’s property and marrying Abishag. There was no annulment of the marriage by divorce, so the marriage was in good standing until David’s death. Was she a widow, a virgin, or both? That’s a very interesting question.
Now, was the marriage a one-flesh joining without sex? I don’t see how it could be. It’s pretty obvious that David’s attendants wanted him to have sex, keeping in place the notion that a proper marriage involves both a social construct and sex. The thrust of the passage seems to be that a king had to be sexually capable in order to maintain the throne for socio-political reasons (v11).
If marriage is just a social construct, then how to explain the sexual language used to describe a one-flesh joining?
@MKT
He is talking about Jim Geraghty of National Review. You can see my posts referencing Geraghty here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/category/jim-geraghty/
This article starts out with adultery…but the reason is something I’ve alluded to before:
‘The One Thing Guaranteed to End All Marriages’
http://www.faithwire.com/2017/08/05/the-one-thing-guaranteed-to-end-all-marriages/
Cuz no one says it better than Mark Driscoll and no one has ever, ever needed to translate the original transcript before, ever.
OT: The puritans on husbandly authority:
https://singingandslaying.com/2017/08/07/how-a-husband-loses-his-authority/
Includes encouragement of husbands to say no to their wives.
It is not just that there exists a standard by which we are relatively sinful. One can create arbitrary standards that say good is evil and evil is good.
It is that God is the perfect standard that we need to measure ourselves by … a standard that we all fail. The hypocrite uses a lesser standard and thinks himself righteous according to it.
The contrast is most extreme with the Left, when they abandon all standards and call their intolerant Tolerance good. But we must not fool ourselves into thinking ourselves righteous just because we can adopt a slightly better low standard.
We are called to be perfect sons of God our Father. Blessed are you who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for you will be filled.
I am still reading through the replies, but the fact that we are even having this conversation (is sex meant only for marriage) shows an additional reason so many have failed to keep God’s proper balance of marriage.
Amazing.
FH-
On that point, yeah, few say it better than Mark Driscoll. Good of him to do it, too, since most pastors HAVE studied the original langauges, and such study can be a reason to “lord it over” those who haven’t. That’s why so few Christian leaders actually would say what Driscoll said.
And his point is valid to your second statement, too, this statement: “no one has ever, ever needed to translate the original transcript before, ever.”
That’s the point. We have English translations. Many. We also have concordances, interlinear Bibles, language software…on it goes. If some person, particularly one person who is armchair translating the Greek, comes up with some radical, new translation that is completely off-course from the good English translations (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, to name some), that should tell you something. Those translations were translated from the originals, by good, scholarly men who know the languages. And when the armchair translators come in, it is to do exactly what Driscoll said, avoid what the text says in English.
It’s just another case of ‘do as I say and don’t question’. The same shit you guys have been doing here all along. I don’t agree with what others say about twisting words this way or that but I think the discussion is important. You just come here to shut it down.
Just to let you know but Mark Driscoll is not liked around here, nor is he thought of as a authority.
And there’s the point. If you have many, obviously it wasn’t as simple to translate the original; or there have been definitive steps to choose meanings in order to control others, leading to their being multiple different translations.
FH-
Yeah, I read every Mark Driscoll post here when Dalrock went through them some time ago. So? Broken clock, right twice a day, etc. I don’t agree with Driscoll on much, too.
And to your second point, if it’s not simple to translate the original, and I agree, it isn’t, that should scare anybody who did grab a concordance and thinks they have found a unique meaning.
Those translations are on the whole very similar. Jesus tells his followers to be perfect, Jesus is crucified, Jesus rises from the grave. Believe in Jesus to be saved.
There is no aspect of the Christian faith that requires precise Greek translation.
That is why we can refute all the churchian heresies using English translations, rather than needing to study Greek first.
Well, I don’t go seeking Greek translations. However, I enjoy the conversation anyway. I would just like the text to make logical sense to me. And Jesus saying that me desire a woman is the same as committing adultery in my heart doesn’t make sense to me. How is any man meant to find a wife if he isn’t allowed to desire her first?
Jesus says lust, not desire.
Dictionary.com offers the following definitions for lust:
1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followed by for):
4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish:
5. Obsolete. – pleasure or delight; desire; inclination; wish.
Do you say you desire her, or lust for her?
He is not forbidden from desiring her, because the word used is lust, not desire.
Personally, considering pre-arranged marriage (ex: Isaac), I suspect we overrate desire. I think few couplings will fail the deserted island sexual attraction test. (which would also fix any obesity related repulsion) Though I’d fix the scales by having the man be older.
Perfectly said. Marriage is the answer to all sexual immorality. The only thing I would add is that agape love is the overarching principle. Agape love is the answer (for the most part) to disobedience to male authority. Feminism has destroyed women. They do not want women to realize that marriage holds the key to their happiness. Women who passionately devote themselves to their husbands will find their husbands less inclined to immorality, and the husband who affectionately and caringly loves his wife in and outside the bedroom will find a more obedient wife. Peace in Jesus Christ.
OT: Doug Wilson on God’s words to Eve:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/feckless-evangelical-bridge.html
I happen to agree with Wilson, but certainly Susan Foh’s perspective certainly seems to be coming true in our time. Of course, her interpretation corresponds with the rise of Feminism 2.0..
And Jesus saying that me desire a woman is the same as committing adultery in my heart doesn’t make sense to me.
In the next verse, it talks about ripping your eye out of your socket. If you assume the absolute literal interpretation, that doesn’t make sense either. If it did, most Christians for the past 2000 years would be walking around with pirate eye patches. So rather than assume the absolute literal interpretation, try and pick up the nuance of the verse. That there is some level of desire which is morally just and natural to feel, and some level of desire beyond that which is crossing the line to sinful.
@Dalrock
To be clear, in Romans 4:15 and 5:13 he explained that sin is defined as a violation of the Law. The Apostle John also said as much, that sin is lawlessness. Thus, Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, trained in the Law AND speaking in the Spirit, stated that sexual sins are clearly listed in the Law. And we should also know that the Law itself contains an injunction on adding to the Law as well as subtracting from the Law.
So, either the Apostle Paul is a liar, or someone else around here is teaching as doctrine the precepts of men.
The most striking thing about your post is I notice you don’t touch the central point to your question. Is marriage causing sexual immorality today? The answer is most assuredly yes. Modern so-called marriage, not marriage as defined Bibically.
To understand how marriage begins, we observe Genesis 2:24. Jesus was very helpful in providing exegesis of that passage. When the Pharisees questioned him on the grounds for divorce, He quoted Genesis 2:24 as the authority on marriage. The Pharisees did not dispute that (as some idiots on my blog have). We know from the text of the passage that exactly *when* a man and woman are married is dependent on the meaning of the Hebrew word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24. Fortunately, that word was translated (as part of that passage) in to the Greek “kollao” and the Apostle Paul very helpfully used the same word to mean “sex” in 1st Corinthians 6:16 within the context of Genesis 2:24. Paul quoted half the verse to ensure we all understood that sex is the act by which a person becomes one flesh.
For a more thorough explication, see my post on Biblical Marriage. That’s part of the series I did on Theology For Men of the West
So, according to Genesis 2:24, the man shall leave his father and his mother, he shall have sex with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. The sexual intercourse is the marriage ceremony. Which is also why it’s known as the act of marriage. When the eligible virgin has sex, she is married to the man who takes her virginity.
I have received massive amounts of flack for pointing out that no-where in Scripture is there any prohibition on a man having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry, except for 1st Cor. 6:16, the rule against Christian men banging whores. The obvious reason there is no prohibition on a man having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry is that marriage begins with sex. Yet, on close examination no-one has been able to produce such a prohibition and while I’m accused of taking Scripture out of context, that isn’t the case. When the eligible virgin has sex, she is married to the man who penetrated her and took her virginity.
Which means that as you look around your congregation, every so-called “married” couple you see in which the man did not get that woman’s virginity, with only rare exceptions they are living in adultery. The woman was already married to the man who got her virginity, which means the party with the dress and the cake was fraud. Which means that the church’s teaching of completely wrong doctrine has caused this widespread immorality within the church.
The virgin did not have “premarital sex” and she didn’t commit “fornication” when she gave up her virginity to some young man. She married him. She did not sin in doing so and she cannot “confess” it and get forgiveness for the act of marriage. Because it was not a sin. She’s a married woman now.
Everything else, whether it’s a virgin’s lack of agency, a widow’s right to choose who she will marry, the man’s automatic commitment when he penetrates the woman, the right of a man to have more than one wife, the prohibition on Christian divorce, whether prostitutes and lesbians are in sin, all of it is completely secondary to the initiation of marriage.
And to ;answer Novaseeker’s question, this is probably the pressing question of the modern church today. All else pales in comparison.
Well-stated SirHamster.
Dear Fellas:
Feminist Hater sez:
Nor should you. The King James Version is the authoritative source. It’s in (relatively) plain English.
Note that people don’t read the bible primarily to get some historical or logical truth. They read it in order to get a vision of how to order an advanced society, and to get ethical insights. Few people who settled North America knew Greek; but they all knew the KJV. The KJV was enough for them and it ought to be enough for us.
As an aside, this is why atheists are fools for not studying the KJV. That’s not really relevant to the original article, but I had to throw it in there.
My Nigga Toad:
You should consider it a great honor that you’re being deconstructed here. If you’re the subject of criticism on Dalrock, it’s not flack (by my definition, flack is just needless sniping). You should take this as an opportunity to hone your arguments.
Note that when the author of this blog deconstructs feminists and crypto-feminist Christian priests, they all either ignore him or pretend offense. You’re a lot smarter than those guys, so more is expected of you.
Your arguments are all formally valid. The problem is that you start them off with premisses that aren’t true. In this article here, for example, you’re excluding the middle, with an implied premiss that what isn’t explicitly forbidden is permitted. Not only is fornication, polygamy, and allowing your wives to dyke out in front of you forbidden, but even if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be permitted. (Lyn87 – another guy who is smarter than I am – convinced me of that).
Anyway, I hope that you go through this article and, rather than doing what you did here (simply restating your premisses, implying a circular argument) you disambiguate your position so that it conforms to 1 Cor 6:13-20, or you revise your premisses that conflict with it.
Note to the audience, that a couple of weeks ago, I criticized Toad for his innovations, and made the argument that his innovations are so comprehensive that he really shouldn’t call his post-Christian theology “Christianity” any longer.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/07/30/conversation-with-toad-no-2/
As I pointed out there, Toad is a thoughtful guy and quite intelligent. He owes it to people who follow his new post-Christian religion to delineate its differences. He also owes this to himself. Everyone benefits by living an examined life.
Regards,
Boxer
@Derek Ramsey and @Gunner Q
Note the wording of Deuteronomy 24:1, the specificity of “when a man takes a wife and marries her.”
Taking a wife (via betrothal, obtaining her agreement, purchasing her or capturing her in war) is not the same thing as marrying her. Sex is what marries her. This is why the virgin betrothed in Deuteronomy 22:24 is referred to as a “wife”. In betrothing her, he has taken her as his wife, but until they have sex he has not married her.
“I have received massive amounts of flack for pointing out that no-where in Scripture is there any prohibition on a man having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry…”
Ah yes, AT, the queen of loophole theology. The one whose blog begins with a couple of porn star-looking ladies in a hot tub. This guy is way out there, somewhere in Branch Davidian/Yearning for Zion Ranch territory.
No she just had sex with him…it’s only half of what constitutes a marriage. Even in Deutoromony 22:28-20 if that scenerio happened the guy had to pay the father and have her as his wife. There has to be an outward sign of marriage as well as the private act. That’s why there are public witnesses to the outward act of the couple giving themselves to one another in marriage…whether that be in civil court or church. You can’t just have unmarried sex and then they are magically your wife…it’s a carnal act between unmarried people until they have some outward sign of marriage.
Let’s just hope he didn’t take someone’s virginity. Lest he doesn’t practice what he preaches.
ys,boxer et all, if you think a 2nd hand translation via a group of influenced humans who always have at least some agenda is more accurate than the actual words spoken in the original language.
I only have 3 words.
just to lighten the mood 😀
@Caspar Reyes
“To covet anything is to illegitimately desire it, either to use it or to be admired for possessing it. If you covet a lawn mower it’s because a) you want to cut your grass with it; b) you want to be seen or imagined owning it. Why else would you covet your neighbor’s wife if not for the use of her and/or for the admiration of others, both of which are sexual”?………end quote
I’m not sure people understand what “coveting” is and why it is condemned in scripture, but I’ll do my best to explain it
Coveting is NOT the desire for a lawnmower, it is the desire to acquire your NEIGHBOR’S lawnmower
Coveting is NOT the desire to have sex with a woman, it is the desire to acquire your NEIGHBOR’S WOMAN..
The reason for this is because “coveting” leads to jealousy, envy, and then THEFT to take what doesn’t belong to you
I personally don’t think anyone in the west has the true concept of what coveting really is (and I’m including 99% of Christians in that) because feminism has so corrupted our values and beliefs that we recoil with horror when we understand that from God’s perspective, a wife is her husband’s property, she belongs to him, he owns her. This is why coveting is so bad, it is because a man is tempted to STEAL what belongs to another man
This is enforced in God’s rebuke to King David for his sin of murder, and subsequent adultery with Bathsheba……David’s sin, as pointed out by Nathan the prophet, was NOT that he had sex with a woman, namely Bathsheba, it was because she belonged to someone else, and if David needed to get his sexual needs met, he had 6 wives already at home waiting for him, and that God Himself would have given him even more women to add to his harem, if they weren’t enough……..see 2Sa 12:8 “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”
So to summarize, Coveting is not the desire for something, it is the desire to acquire what already belongs to someone else…..You can own 50 lawnmowers if that’s your fetish, just don’t take your neighbor’s lawnmower that’s all
““What does that mean in the Greek, Pastor Mark?” You can always tell a rebellious evangelical. They do word studies. They try to go to the Greek and figure out if it perhaps means something else.””
Only because his theology was so off his members had to seek the truth, e.g. the insanity of Mat5:28 and the repercussions of a dreadful translation. Which all stems from the KJV and ALL English translations use this as the master guide. Now the KJV wasnt fully in error but the understanding of the word lust 400 years ago meant covet, 400 years later our translations still want to use the same word even with its different meaning.
If you want to get under someone like MD he has a website with subscriptions im sure he would be delighted to have you on board.
What Mark is saying above is he dosnt want anyone questioning his understanding of his understanding of his bible translation. He wasn’t just criticising using the original language, he was criticising those who – GASP – DO – WORD STUDIES !!
The 1st commandment of Mark Driscoll is thou shall not do word studies or question me in any way.
The 1st commandment of Mark Driscoll is thou shall not do word studies or question me in any way.
Preacher man talkin on the TV
Putting down the rock n roll
Wants me to send a donation
Cuz he’s worried about my soul
He says Jesus walked on the water
And I know that its true
But sometimes I think that preacher man
Would like to do a little walking, too
@Earlthomas
” There has to be an outward sign of marriage as well as the private act. That’s why there are public witnesses to the outward act of the couple giving themselves to one another in marriage…whether that be in civil court or church. “
By that standard, Adam and Eve were not married.
You err because you are attempting to place something into Scripture that does not exist. Adam and Eve were either married or they were not. If they were married it was with the act of sex. Period, no ifs ands or buts.
The question is how God has defined marriage. He defined marriage as the man penetrating the eligible virgin with the act of sexual intercourse. Period. Other things can be added by agreement (betrothal, etc), but the basic rule is the eligible virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity.
@ys,MKT
if you believe that what Mat 5:28 in most of our translations says from KJV onwards : ” But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
maybe you can tell me why is only applies when looking at women ?
A little context though…before the fall God created Eve from Adam and brings her to him. Adam makes the outward declaration she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones. I could take that as a marriage proposal because we read directly after that what marriage is about and she is called his wife (no reference to sex yet). Then the fall and results from that. Then after that it says Adam ‘truly’ knows his wife and she conceived. That’s the sex part after the outward declaration.
@ys, if you need to believe a translation this is the most accurate translation ive found so far from 1390, pre KJV. Still missing the correct term for wife. Apart from that its bang on.
Matthew 5:28 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
28 But I say to you, that every man that seeth a woman [for] to covet her, hath now done lechery by her in his heart [now he hath done lechery with her in his heart].
While AT continues his clown show falsely witnessing about what God says and defines …
“And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man … Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. ”
Note how the woman is the man’s wife before they become one flesh. The spirit precedes the flesh.
If AT’s position were true, he would badger newlyweds that they aren’t husband and wife until their first night together. “Ahhhhktually, God says somewhere not in the Bible that you’re not married until sexual intercourse” Creepy nonsense, but part and parcel of how he subverts and destroys the existing order so as to lead others astray.
I found most of this discussion involves wresting the scriptures to people’s destruction. Christ says not to lust after wives but apparently sex with virgins is ok outside marriage. This is legalese gibberish and inconsistent with any definition of virtue or Christian devotion. As bad as any churchian short comings. Christ wants us to become something. The Jews fell into apostasy because they were measuring their steps as a way to certify Sabbath worship instead of worshiping. Is porn ok is the woman is a virgin but not ok if she is a married porn star? These questions are all ridiculous. The guidelines are pretty simple and designed to foster spiritual and moral growth by allowing our simple passions to mature in marriage and be enhanced with the beauty of family. Looking for loop holes to Gods paths is missing the point of Christianity and who we worship.
Another poster above said he cannot imagine a God who cares about his sexual habits. Well, you lack imagination just like everyone who says “I cannot imagine a God who…” followed by their favorite vice, social concern, or worldly attitude. What does our imagination have to do with anything? You have simply declared, “I am God, and no one rules over me.” Not original and the view of rebellious humanity through the ages.
@Boxer
“Your arguments are all formally valid. The problem is that you start them off with premisses that aren’t true. In this article here, for example, you’re excluding the middle, with an implied premiss that what isn’t explicitly forbidden is permitted. Not only is fornication, polygamy, and allowing your wives to dyke out in front of you forbidden, but even if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be permitted.”
Boxer, I’m torn. On one hand, you fit the profile of certain jesuits, but on the the other hand I’ve seen you in some brilliant takedowns of the people arguing on the Frankfort school, etc, and I just can’t see a jesuit playing that game. Maybe you’re a new generation jesuit. If you’re KoM, there’s a protocol. Go for it. Seriously. OTOH, I’m sure this is amusing as hell for you. But maybe there’s a communication issue. You have that je ne sais quoi…. and I’m on the other side of the fence. Transgression is a Pandora’s box.
Your argument is intellectually indefensible. State the “proper” premises (assumptions) in clear terms and let’s get started.
“Ahhhhktually, God says somewhere not in the Bible that you’re not married until sexual intercourse”
I guess that means Mary was never married to Joseph…even though in the Bible says he embraced her as his wife after the angel told him what was going down and there was no reference to intercourse. Now are we going to go with Scripture or someone who thinks only intercourse means marriage.
Are you an expert in Greek to English translation?
You are claiming all the English translations of the Bible are wrong and corrupted because Jesus would not have talked about non-wives as the object of lust. Apparently words can only mean 1 possible thing, even though every dictionary contains multiple definitions of words.
Unfortunately for your thesis, the entire porn industry exists as a testament to the depths of male lust, and the adultery we practice if we entertain it in our hearts. But clearly Jesus is okay with all of it and is only rebuking lust targeted at wives. Everything else must be good holy fun.
@necroking48 Just a bit of correction on coveting. It isn’t desire, and it isn’t desire for another man’s property. Coveting is theft by legal means. Coveting is alienation of property, and in the case of human property, manifests as alienation of affection. Enticing and luring are forms of coveting. Inciting rebellion is coveting. Coveting is active, not merely a mental state. If someone sets up a scenario so you lose your legal property, with the goal of acquiring it for themselves, they coveted your property. Marital interference? Coveting. Theft and adultery are both explicitly mentioned as sins; coveting is added to them as a separate sin because it is different; it is a snowflake just “letting things happen”, and you can almost never prove it. But the outcome is the same; your brother or neighbor loses his lawful property, or the enjoyment thereof. City bylaws that prevent you from enjoying your property? Covetous neighbors; they covet your happiness. Knowing what coveting is, is really important; not understanding this, we can feel it is wrong, but without knowing it is the Biblical definition of covetousness, how do you fight back against it except on an ad hoc basis?
Mycroft, take your George Gordon ideas and jump off a cliff.
Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, taught that it was not within man’s power to resist temptations to fornication and/or adultery. No more than it was within man’s power to fly like a bird. So in his disordered mind, the fact that the RCC had always enjoined the faithful to avoid sexual sin was just more proof of her “errors”. And yes, he believed all of Christendom (both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) had been in error for 1500 years. Until he, Martin Luther, came along to teach us the correct dogmas! Lord, preserve us from such insolence!
Luther also explicitly taught that there was no real need for a Christian to abstain from sin, as long as he had faith in Christ. Luther was admirably clear and honest about this (clearly insane) idea of his when he stated that a believing Christian “could commit adultery – nay, murder – a thousand times a day and it would not affect his justification before God”. And since Luther did away with the apostolic doctrine of Purgatory, this hypothetical thousandfold murderer or adulterer would go STRAIGHT TO HEAVEN when he died. Which is why Lutheran summed up his teaching by exhorting his followers to “sin and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still!”
According to Luther, this was possible because for the believing Christian the righteousness of Christ is IMPUTED to him at the time of Judgment. In other words, Almighty God is prevented from seeing the state of your soul and sees Christ instead. Luther explained further with an analogy: just as a fresh snowfall covers and makes a pristine appearance out of even of a “stinking dungheap”, so that it looks pure to the eye, so the polluted soul of an unrepentant, habitual sinner (yet believing Christian) appears pristine before the Judgment Seat of God. All that is needed is faith in Christ..and presto! – your sins are not judged against you.
Can you see why the Catholic Church excommunicated this madman? For myself, I still just don’t understand how anyone can be a Protestant. Do you just make an effort to never study history? I mean , if you want to embrace a heresy…at least Arianism or Donatism or Monophysiticism (sp?) would seem to be somewhat rational. But Protestantism? It has to be about the nuttiest heresy ever (right there with the Albigensians) – how ironic that it proved to be the most popular of all the heresies. But human nature being what it is, where everyone wants something for nothing, I suppose a heresy that promises Heaven in return for taking 5 minutes to say the “Sinner’s Prayer” is just what the doctor ordered!
@Hamster
Are you still suffering from your lesbian porn addiction? Should I start linking? You chose to go head to head with me years ago and you lost. In fact, you were just a side-kick to Simple Tim. You are a tool. Nothing more. Save yourself the embarrassment and go away.
“Ahhhhktually, God says somewhere not in the Bible that you’re not married until sexual intercourse”
Don’t know what any particular Protestant church would teach on this, since they all have their own doctrines. But I can give you the traditional Catholic teaching on this, if it helps:
Assuming no other issues or impediments, a couple may marry without benefit of sexual intercourse (ever!) and the marriage is still completely VALID. The couple may live together as husband and wife in this valid marriage, and this is not sinful or a scandal in any way (with one exception – see below). However, the marriage is not INDISSOLUBLE until it is consummated, because it is in this act that the two become one flesh…which no man may put asunder.
Now, for the exception I mentioned. If the couple make a deliberate plan to abstain permanently from the marital act because they don’t want to conceive children (thereby using abstinence as a form of birth control), then they are living in sin. Because they are violating the natural law (all animals are meant to reproduce), the commandments of God and the Church (“be fruitful and multiply”), and their own wedding vows (where they individually promise to lovingly accept any children God graces them with, and to raise them in the Faith)
But in the case of people who cannot conceive because they are medically unable to, or in the case of old people who marry for companionship long past the age where children are possible, they may fully abstain from sexual relations and still take comfort in knowing that their marriage is fully valid, as long as they are both OK with the knowledge that the marriage is not indissoluble.
@Derek Ramsey – I think we are quibbling over words in a way that the original audience would not understand. There were steps to a marriage in those days (being “given” by the father, the change in social status and responsibilities, the sexual consumation). The situation of Exodus 22:16-17 does not follow those steps. Whether negating that out-of-order marriage is a veto or a divorce is probably modern semantics. You are correct that the bridge price had to be paid.
@Toad in regard to jumping off a cliff, don’t you recall the Word says, “You shall not tempt YHWH your God.”
You managed to write a long blog post about the Biblical definition of marriage, and not once did you reference the actual Bible verses that contain the word “marriage”. Astounding.
@SirHamster: the Lord God separated the first human into male and female; at the some point the Lord God gave them the power to join again becoming yet another human. Obviously “one flesh” refers to the child of that joining. What God has joined together no man can separate.
@SirHamster says:”
You are claiming all the English translations of the Bible are wrong and corrupted because Jesus would not have talked about non-wives as the object of lust. ”
only because our understanding of what worked correctly in that time has been corrupted, if I said until the 1600 unmarried females were called young maidens, old never married spinsters were called “old maids” – a term still used today.
again, do you really think Jesus was saying this sin only applies to looking at women.
what you really think it says is : “anyone who looks at anyone with sexual desire has committed adultery in their heart (except those who have signed a marriage license)” – which is the churchian translation.
when i became a Christian decades ago a few did say to me there are odd translation errors between the versions, and I had about a dozen versions I used. i would say 99.999% of the translations are great, But in the time we are living in this verse is used to justify divorces, something Im pretty sure God hates. So Im going to keep trying to get to the bottom of it.
God hates divorces and using a misunderstood single verse to justify them is sinful.
Perhaps relevant in modern times is Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which speaks of a situation where a woman may be married more than once. If her first husband divorces her, she may become the wife of another man.
Some of these comments imply that if a young couple has casual sex, without any thought of marriage, that the sex act somehow “traps” the woman in the category of “married”. As much as I am morally opposed to casual sex (and have seen its potential to be harmful spiritually, psychologically, physically) I can also sympathize with the claim that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 applies to modern casual “safe” sex. The man leaves her afterwards. Why should she be married? Why insist on an anachronistic writ of divorce when society is clear about what the lack of commitment?
AT is not concerned at all that I accused him of false witness and leading others astray. You’ll notice he had no answer to any of my points, and that is because what I said was true.
The only thing he wants at this point is for me to go away, to spare him the emotional pain. He claims to have won once and for all in some unseen past event, but that’s irrelevant to the topic at hand.
This Brave Bible Warrior desires that others listen to him and follow his lead. Does he not inspire you when he intellectually surrenders on first contact?
Perhaps, AT, you would get what you desire if you stuck to the truth and built Christians up, rather than baffling them with bullshit. But you would need to repent, first.
Automatic commitment? Ha! Tell that to all the men who have one night stands and think nothing of leaving a woman behind weeping. Even in the time of the Patriarchs there was generally a week-long feast to celebrate the marriage, and it is evident this occurred in the time of the NT Church (Wedding of Cana). Commitment doesn’t fix a lot of the problems with illicit sex mentioned in the law. Also, polygamy is not God’s ideal–Jesus has one bride. Polygamy generally resulted in many problems in the OT, not the least of which was Solomon’s apostasy. In terms of a virgin’s agency, Rebekah’s father and brothers asked her if she would go with the servant and become Isaac’s wife. Christian divorce is permissible where fornication (illicit sex as defined by the law) occurs. Remarriage is open to interpretation. I’ve read many of your posts, which are appallingly dark and not written with the Spirit.
@Hamster back on the vilefacelessminion blog thread, Toad did beat you. You kept going in irrelevant directions, ignoring simple facts, etc. You won’t defeat Toad with mere Churchianity. Your corrupted form of Christianity is as bad as his. Possibly worse.
@SJB
Questionable, when Paul, an expert Bible scholar, interprets it thus:
“Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.””
The sexual act is becoming one flesh, unconditional on the prostitute having child. Note also that one flesh in Genesis has no reference to Cain and Abel.
Reproduction doesn’t even make sense when a couple can have multiple children! Are all those children one flesh? Or shall man and wife become many flesh?
@Mycroft
Toad asked for and received a proctored debate on Vox Popoli. He was too emotionally triggered by my position to fairly represent it to a neutral third party. I, on the other hand, summarized AT’s position in a way that he accepted.
The emotionally incontinent can claim victory all they want, but AT is not smart enough to do detached analysis. Posturing may look like winning, but it is not.
As for you, you never did provide the evidence you promised about the societal benefits of “polygyny”.
@Hamster
You are an idiot. Make a coherent argument. Cite some actual Scripture. Take a stand. Give it a try rather than your standard sniping and personal attacks. Or, perhaps I’m being too subtle for the Hamster. Make an argument. Be rational. Cite sources. Make an exegesis. Be a man.
@SirHamster: Did prostitutes in 50 AD not become pregnant as a result of coitus? Remarkable!
The milieu of St. Paul seems to have not the modern separation of coitus and reproduction. Somehow those folks knew that “doing it” produced a child that was neither a clone of the father nor a clone of the mother but a joining of them both.
As a side note: go ahead: separate yourself into the parts from your father and the parts from your mother. I’ll wait.
I do agree with you that the sexual act makes marriage valid. After all, it has long been generally accepted that without consummation there is no marriage. Even under our current societal laws, an unconsummated marriage can be annulled.
Since at least the time of the patriarchs however, there have been steps added, for good reason, to assure commitment. Betrothal, the wedding feast, these all make the marriage known to the community, so that everyone knows who is married and who is not. The Jews also used a marriage contract, where the husband committed himself to protection, provision, etc. One has to consider that the Jews were under a theocracy. In other words, if a man raped a virgin, the Law forced him to marry her. No such laws exist in our time. There is nothing in our society to compel a rapist to marry a virgin, nor could her father legally stop her if she decided to (not that many women would want to). Many of your writings presuppose a theocracy such as existed under the Law. We won’t even get into the fact that we no longer live under the Mosaic Law as Christians.
@SJB Hamster has his flaws, but he is correct about two becoming into one. It isn’t talking about having children. There is a spiritual and DNA level union that happens during the sex act, and modern science has been discovering that telogeny is a real thing.
Jeff Strand: Luther also explicitly taught that there was no real need for a Christian to abstain from sin, as long as he had faith in Christ.
I think Protestants teach that if someone believes in Christ, then he can get away with sin, but he wouldn’t want to sin. That faith produces good works, even if good works are not necessary for salvation.
So according to Protestants, if you have faith, you will lead a Godly life. If you don’t lead a Godly life, it’s a sign you don’t have faith. You have “dead faith,” which isn’t real faith.
The Puritans led extremely Godly lives, because if they didn’t, they feared it was a sign they didn’t have real faith, and thus weren’t saved.
AT has a reading comprehension problem. He can’t even recognize a Scripture quotation from Genesis! Is it because I assumed too much of him by leaving off the Biblical citation? So much for AT being a Biblical scholar when he can’t see what was placed in front of him at the very beginning.
Here is the rational refutation in my first post related to AT:
Like I said, he is emotionally triggered. He lashes out without understanding. Under pressure, he does not engage on the rational level, but goes to what he knows: Rhetorical attacks and posturing.
I accept your surrender, AT, but you need to get right with God.
AT’s starting point seems to be “I wanna live like Hugh Hefner and Muhammad rolled up into one. How can I take some proof texts and build a theology around that”?
@Hamster I’m not sure what you mean about “the spirit precedes the flesh”. Adam and Eve were married when God “brought the woman to Adam”. That is, the womans father gave her to the man. Transfer of ownership. That was the marriage; a covenant between father and son-in-law. Sex consummates it.
@pamelaparizo, the Jewish system was in the time of Jesus/Mary/Joseph, the “marriage” (as we would term it) meant they were living together for up to a year, and was considered a “marriage” but deliberately unconsummated, which is why Joseph was going to divorce Mary even though they hadn’t consumed the marriage when he found out she was pregnant. It couldnt be annulled at that stage, only a divorce could be served.
Its a strange concept for us, that arrangement.
Not always.
Your interpretation doesn’t fit with how the concept is used in the rest of the Bible. But out of curiousity: Are multiple children one flesh, or multiple fleshes?
@Minesweeper remember also, the penalty for sleeping with a betrothed virgin is the same as for adultery. Once two men make an agreement of marriage, then the marriage is as good as done. Even without sex. Jacob’s marriage to Rachel and Leah for instance; he did not consummate for 7 years. Simeon and Levi slaughtered a man who slept with their sister, even though he wanted to marry her later. As a reward, God made Levi the priestly tribe of Israel. That should tell you what God’s priorities are.
@Hamster
“Toad asked for and received a proctored debate on Vox Popoli. “
For those who are interested in just how much of the debate belonged to Hamster, you may peruse it at the following link. I asked for moderation after some 900 comments when it had reached the point that Simple Tim and his sidekick Hamster refused to deal with the debate.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/06/bow-not-before-caesar.html
The climax of the debate was Simple Tim declaring that he wanted to modify Scripture to make what I was saying (vis a vis female-female sexual contact) a sin…
I believe what I have been taught, that all homosex is sin.
Attacking Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.
The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?
Simple Tim and his side-kick Hamster wanted to re-write Scripture to meet their beliefs. The funny part is that at the time I was bedbound recovering from wounds at the time. I can’t imagine what would have happened if there were no narcotics involved during that debate. Either the Apostle Paul is a liar, or Simple Tim and Hamster are liars.
@Kevin
*”I found most of this discussion involves wresting the scriptures to people’s destruction”*…..end quote
Quite the contrary, I find most of this discussion revolves around a wicked, boastful, self righteousness and moral superiority over anything “sexual”, whilst ignoring all the other sins in the bible
Churchians, with their misguided, puritanical hatred of porn and sexual immorality seem to to think that Porn is THE worse sin a person can commit, whilst patting themselves on the back for committing sins of gluttony, wrath, strife etc
The same bible that condemns adultery, and fornication ALSO condemns eating too much, and getting angry at your brother IN THE SAME VERSE, yet I don’t hear churchians castigating their followers of THOSE sins
We literally have made the test of a Christian’s true character, and Christ-mindedness in whether they watch porn or not….God damn us all, we deserve the world’s hatred and scorn of us for our hypocrisy, and inconsistent handling of the word of God
The same fanatical churchians who froth at the mouth over any believer caught watching porn, will gleefully watch 2 men beat each other to serious injury or death in an MMA fight, or Boxing match
The same fanatical churchians who froth at the mouth over any believer caught watching porn, will have no problem with PRIDE on a daily basis. Instead they will justify under the banner of moral self righteousness
The same fanatical churchians who froth at the mouth over any believer caught watching porn, will commit IDOLATRY on a daily basis with their devotion to football, baseball, their celebrities, their fav politicians, and anything else they put before God, and I’m not even going to include the sin of Marialotry, and idol worship which is rampant in the Roman Catholic Church….but of course THOSE sins are ok cause we’re not fapping to porn!!
*”Christ says not to lust after wives but apparently sex with virgins is ok outside marriage. This is legalese gibberish”*……..end quote
No it’s not legalese gibberish at all, it’s the retarded mess churchians get into when they add the precepts of men to the word of God, and/or make sins of things that ain’t sins
The bible is very clear what the definition of sin is….It’s the transgression of the LAW…….How many times do we have to say this?, where there is NO LAW, there is no transgression……you ignore this at your own peril
The reason a man can not covet a MARRIED WOMAN, yet pursue a virgin “outside of marriage” (your words), and not feel bad about it, is because there is no law forbidding it……any woman not currently married to an husband was fair game for any of the patriarchs to add to his wives that he already has, and no sin was incurred
I’m so sick and tired of those who want to broaden what Jesus said in Matthew 5, and pretend that ADULTERY really means fornication as well, and I gave my reasons before in another comment why churchians do this
*”Another poster above said he cannot imagine a God who cares about his sexual habits”*….end quote
Perhaps the reason the commentator thinks this, is he has to contend with self righteous churchians like you think think that porn is the worse sin a person can commit because It’s such an easy target, and it hits home at male masculinity and a males sex drive…..by shaming them and belittling men who watch porn, you can assume an air of moral superiority, while jsutifying your longing gaze of a a hot chick in a bathing suit….but that’s ok, ccause I don’t fap to porn!!!!!
RPL said: “I think Protestants teach that if someone believes in Christ, then he can get away with sin, but he wouldn’t want to sin. That faith produces good works, even if good works are not necessary for salvation.
So according to Protestants, if you have faith, you will lead a Godly life. If you don’t lead a Godly life, it’s a sign you don’t have faith. You have “dead faith,” which isn’t real faith.
The Puritans led extremely Godly lives, because if they didn’t, they feared it was a sign they didn’t have real faith, and thus weren’t saved.”
RPL,
Good point on the Puritans and Calvinists – you are correct that they strived to live godly lives, as a sign of their predestination. Thanks for that.
However, when it comes to Luther and his followers, I don’t think your statement applies about a believer in Christ can get away with sin, but wouldn’t want to sin. The reason is because Luther said it is NOT POSSIBLE for a man to resist sexual temptation. He meant that literally – it is not merely hard to resist sexual sins, it’s impossible in the same sense it’s impossible for a man to fly like a bird. (Try telling that to your wife!)
That Luther taught this needs to be emphasized (“Sin and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still”). He also taught that man has no free will – if a man sins it’s because a demon has taken over his soul and rides and controls it like a man controls a horse he’s riding. And if a man does good deeds, it’s the exact same thing except it’s an angel controlling him instead of a demon.
People don’t want to be reminded of these doctrines Luther taught, because they clearly show how mentally unhinged and deranged the founder of Protestantism was (and I didn’t even mention the time Luther claimed to have – literally! – bested the Devil in a farting contest!). But all this is a matter of the historical record and cannot be denied. If Catholics have to live with the sinful lifestyles of the Borgia popes (though none taught heresy), then Prots have to live with the crazy doctrines of Martin Luther.
@necroking48 , your bang on, and i’ll raise your example of MMA which some would shirk from.
Churchians will happily let the entire family on “any given Sunday” after church spend hours watching dozens of men give each other permanent and unrecoverable brain damage on a field while playing catch.
But thats ok, cause no naked ladies involved.
@MKT
State a position, make an argument, cite your source. Otherwise you’re just one more idiot in the pack of anklebiters.
WAY off topic, but I have been wanting to do a series on workout/diet routine for a long time.
https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/time-to-get-in-shape/
@Mycroft
It is an observation.
In marriage, the two are bonded into one before the two physically become one flesh. That is the spirit of marriage, versus the flesh of marriage. Some reverse this order, and there is a loss in doing so. Keep the marriage bed holy.
Now marriage teaches us something about the nature of our salvation:
One must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven. “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” There needs to be a spiritual life to enter the place of eternal life. Yet we also know that there is to be a physical resurrection, for Paul teaches, “So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable …”
Whether in marriage or resurrection, the spirit precedes the flesh. Why does this matter? “Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.”
Dear Toad:
Thanks for the levelheaded reply. Please see inside text…
The SJ taught me to think as a teenager. In retrospect, I’m pleased with the job they did, but I’m not a member of any religious organization; and I’m sure my lifestyle precludes my membership (in the church, much less the SJ).
I don’t understand this part, sorry.
Amusing is part of it. I learn a lot from your contributions; and I think they have the potential to teach others. Certainly I don’t agree with the specifics of most of your articles, but they’re well formed and dense with sources.
In any event, I only argue with people who are worthy of my time. For example: you don’t see me stooping to quarrel with SirHamster, do you? What on earth could he teach me? Incidentally, why do you bother with him? Isn’t it a little like a screaming match with the homeless wino, down at the subway station?
Well, here and on your own blog, you have historically presented a series of contentious propositions, e.g.:
1. Men may allowed to be married to more than one woman simultaneously
2. The women in such families ought to indulge in lesbian sex with each other
3. Banging ho’s (provided they are unmarried) is permissible
I have no problem with any of these things (the first two, admittedly, aren’t anything I’d be interested in, but that’s a personal preference). The issue I have traditionally raised is the same issue the author of this blog just raised. Such things contradict the text, specifically 1 Cor 6:13-20.
It seems to me to be difficult to reconcile your own contentions with the text of the bible. Hence my earlier suggestion (on my own blog) about disambiguating, calling your own innovation something other than Christianity, and perhaps issuing a series of rulings on the matter on your own authority. Given your reticence to this, I would say you have two choices.
1. admit your own interpretation of the text contradicts the plain meaning of the text, as cited
2. make some argument attempting to reconcile 1 Cor 6:13-20 to your own propositions, above.
I think that if it were possible to run with the second choice, you’d have done so. You clearly know the text very well, and you’re a careful thinker. You can’t do it, because it really can’t be done by anyone. You’ve asserted P, Q, R, and the text clearly asserts ~P, ~Q, ~R.
Your earlier response to me here, in which you declared the New Testament incomplete, and where you promoted a sort of religious intuitionism, was another hint that you’re going in your own direction. Admitting that you’ve innovated a post-Christian religion of your own would be the first step toward escaping this dilemma.
There is nothing inherently wrong with leaving Christianity and starting a new religion. And note that doing so doesn’t preclude you from using the Bible (Christians use earlier pre-Christian stuff in their liturgy… that’s what the Old Testament is). You’d just be being honest, with yourself and others, about where you stand.
Best,
Boxer
@AT
I called you a false witness and one who leads others astray.
Citing a 2 year old thread with 900+ comments is not a refutation and is completely irrelevant. You are even swinging at phantoms – simplytimothy is not here. His arguments are irrelevant to whether marriage is defined as penis in vagina, or something else.
You said God defined marriage as PIV, period. That definition does not exist. But as Genesis says, a woman becomes a man’s wife even before they become one flesh. You are refuted. You are a liar unfit to handle or teach the Bible.
Now take your pick of fight, flight, or submission. But everyone can see you are in over your head.
1 Cor 6:13-20 – How is fornication the only sin against the body? Murder seems a lot more damaging.
All I know is simple fornication isn’t a death sentence like sex during menstruation (Leviticus 20:18). How many of you married men have made that mistake? I’ll stick to the safer sins of sex with prostitutes.
Seriously, I always read St. Paul was dealing with a proto-Gnostic community at Corinth who proclaimed to avoid marriage. But unfortunately, they thought that believing in Christ made it ok to get away with eating food and banging whores at other pagan temples.
Actually, St. Paul is making a moderate proposition. Sex and marriage are ok. And celibacy is greater if you can do it. But if you can’t, go ahead and get married.
Leviticus 20:18 – I guess sex during menstruation is a metaphorical death sentence:
“And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.”
Being cut off from among your people is not a metaphorical death sentence. It was understood to mean stoning to death, if you didn’t get out of dodge and run away across state lines first.
@Hamster
“I called you a false witness and one who leads others astray. “
Cite it, chapter and verse. Make your argument. This is your opportunity to shine. Quote me from my blog, quote me from other verifiable sources. Make your argument, cite the relevant Scripture. This is your opportunity to show everyone that you actually know what you’re talking about.
@davidvs – “I think we are quibbling over words in a way that the original audience would not understand…Whether negating that out-of-order marriage is a veto or a divorce is probably modern semantics.”
Yes, I agree. I’m quibbling in light of AT’s legalistic loophole-based sexuality that Dalrock’s post is railing against. The exception creates a doctrinal legal loophole to allow certain types of free-for-all sex. Whether it was nullifying a vow or marriage, the spirit of the law is plain: a man should not be having sex outside the normal marriage traditions, period. Having sex is always a marriage commitment, and there is no exception to this. To be clear, the exception is that the father can nullify that commitment, but the original act was still sexual immorality. If, as AT claims, that it is not sexual immorality but just an invalid legal contract, then treating this as an exceptional case is wrong.
@ Artisanal Toad – “Taking a wife (via betrothal, obtaining her agreement, purchasing her or capturing her in war) is not the same thing as marrying her. Sex is what marries her.”
I made the proposition above that there are various ways to obtain a bride (you list some here) but that all biblical marriages are consummated with sex. Earlthomas786 raised the counterexample of the non-sexual marriage of Joseph and Mary. The case of King David & Abishag is a counterargument, one not easily ignored. If David and Abishag were not married, why was Adonijah’s action viewed as a claim to the throne? That said, it is plain from 1 Kings 1 that it was a failure that the marriage was not consummated: this is just as difficult a passage for those that say that sex does not institute marriage.
I do make a distinction between a sexual one-flesh joining (brought together by God and irrevocable) and the social-legal joining (what we normally call marriage, brought together by man, and permitted to divorce). However, every proper marriage combines both of these, so speaking of one apart from the other is only helpful from a theoretical standpoint.
If one has sex without the social-legal act of marriage, it still constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes and the eyes of the Law. Similarly, if one has a social-legal marriage without sex, it is also still a marriage, albeit a second-class, incomplete marriage as is also plain in the Law and historical tradition. (If you really need citations for this, I’ll dig them up)
@SirHamster – “Note how the woman is the man’s wife before they become one flesh.” and “You said God defined marriage as PIV, period. That definition does not exist. But as Genesis says, a woman becomes a man’s wife even before they become one flesh. You are refuted.
@Mycroft Jones – “Adam and Eve were married when God “brought the woman to Adam”. That is, the woman’s father gave her to the man.”
I hate to give the appearance of defending AT’s extreme views, but this is hardly a refutation. In explaining Genesis 2:24, Jesus says in Luke 10 that divorce is wrong because man should not separate what God has brought together. God brings all couples together, not just Adam and Eve. It is an unjustified leaping inference to say that God acted as Eve’s father to make her Adam’s wife, when he does this for all couples (and not just the woman!). When does God bring a married couple together if not during sex? Is there any other identifying moment when this can occur?
Sex before marriage does NOT create a marriage. It is a lottery ticket for the father-in-law. You do sex before marriage, you incur the price and obligations of marriage, but are not guaranteed any of the rights and rewards of marriage. Viewing humans as property is hard for the modern Western mind, but it is the only way to understand Scripture.
@ Mycroft Jones – “Sex before marriage does NOT create a marriage. It is a lottery ticket for the father-in-law.”
The two (sex = marriage and father’s lottery ticket) are not mutually exclusive.
If lesbian sex and prostitution are not violations of gods law and there is such a thing as moral prostitution, will we see the rise of evangelizing whore houses? . If Christian men can’t partake in prostitutes regardless of whether or not they pass the sufficiently severed from marriage test, it doesn’t mean that christian women who do pass the test are banned from prostitution. And if nothing else maybe widowed Betty could use her body as a ministry to the men in the church provided she take no compensation for it.
It’s a shame the early church didn’t see the ingenuity of biblical morality and set up a wing of christian prostitutes to evangelize to the gentiles, paul who’s so enthusiastic about evangelizing to all people seems to have missed what could’ve been an incredibly popular evangelism method. And modern day churches can up the game and shoot christian pornos, the unsevered wives and severed prostitutes could engage in lesbian sex while reading the scripture or hardcore affairs with just christian prostitutes. Pauls admonition that if one burns with lust you should get married seems to ignore that for women they could just freely turn to each other.
And a greater shame that christian history is missing the evangelizing whore houses and sex shows but an enterprising christian could blaze the way guided by a good modern grasp of scripture.
On prostitution:
Leviticus 19:29
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
The legally minded would point this out as a restriction on merely pimping your daughter and that she’s free to pimp herself out but the reason given in the second part that prostitution is a source of wickedness and destruction invalidates prostitution as a neutral occupation. There is no moral prostitution.
Hosea 4:13-14
13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.
14 I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.
Another verse where prostitution is shown in it of itself as being immoral, and here the daughters turn to whoredom of their own volition as opposed to being pimped out.
Ezekiel 16:33
33 They give gifts to all whores: but thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them, that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom.
Jerusalem, who’s also an adulteress in this imagery, is admonished as being a whore of such depravity that she not only doesn’t accept payment but pays her lovers.
Deuteronomy 22:20
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
She’s stoned to death for whoredom with no evidence that she’s accepted payment for sex just that she’s not a virgin before marriage.
On lesbians:
Romans 1:26-27
26For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another…
If the men are like the women and are lusting after each other then it’s obvious that the dishonorable passion of women was lusting after each other or lesbian sex.
There’s a degree of obviousness and common sense to all this that legalism and nitpicking undercut. Consider Jesus’ admonition that divorce was wrong and not freely permissible, both the idea that you couldn’t divorce a woman for any reason and the idea that it was adultery to sleep with a divorced woman were not commonly accepted, Jesus does this by using the Genesis depiction of marriage and saying that since it is a God made union it is immoral to dissolve it which invalidates the deuteronomy 24 means of divorce. Jesus uses a common sense interpretation of God creating marriage in uniting adam and eve and invalidates a piece of biblical instruction for divorce and in this scenario we also have a loose use of adultery to as the man commits adultery by putting away his wife and marrying another regardless of the state of the new woman (in line with admonitions God makes that a man is supposed to keep and take care of his wife but I don’t know of this ever being called adultery).
Matthew 19:9
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
If Gods design is a sufficient argument I don’t see prostitution as having much room in the sexual morality established in the picture of marriage shown in eden and expounded on by Jesus.
Another verse on commonsense sin:
Galatians 5:16-18
16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
>Now the works of the flesh are manifest
Sin of the flesh is obvious.
it seems obvious and made all the more so by the picture of marriage in eden that prostitution/casual sex, divorce, etc are not permissible. Prostitution itself is forbidden and there’s no clear distinction between just being a whore and getting paid for it and as such no reason to believe that only those who engaged in casual sex for pay were violators. As for sex is marriage and widows et al have the legal power over marriage thus negating marriage upon copulation for “legal prostitution”, it is made ridiculous (and doubly so by the by Jesus’ instruction on the only legitimate use of divorce there is no special right to divorce granted to widows et al anymore than the deuteronomy 24 prescription for divorce is valid, Jesus makes clear the only valid condition for divorce.
The modern church has a nasty Puritanical streak that runs counter to scripture. They lump everything sexual they don’t like under fornication. But thats not how scripture works. And its a big reason they lost the culture war and will continue loosing it.
Fornication is a sometime translation of ‘sexual immorality’. Sexual immorality means just that, immoral sex. The definition for what sex is immoral come from scripture, namely the OT.
Paul himself in Rom 7:7-12 and Romans 15:4 establishes that the OT was given to us to learn what is sin. When the law states something is sin, that is sin. By implication all things not condemned are not sin. And no where does the OT condemn all sex outside of marriage; only sex between certain classes of people (or animals).
You can’t get away from this. The best you can do is claim it changed in the NT; but then you’d better have really clear verses and a very good reason as to why it changed between covenants and why you’re not adding to the law.
Now lets unpack Dalrock’s interpretation of 1 Cor 7:
From this he concludes:
First clue: He interprets 1 Cor 7 to make things sin the OT never makes sin. BIG red flag.
Second clue: Its really simple to just say, ‘all sex outside of marriage is sinful’. Nice, direct, simple, unambiguous statement. Yet in the whole of the Old and New Testament the scriptures never come right out and do that. That should make you pause.
Third clue: Is 1 Cor 7:1-2 talking about the meaning of sexual immorality? No, Paul was talking about the issue of whether to marry or remain celibate. Dalrock is using it out of context.
Fourth clue: Does 1 Cor 7:1-2 say that sex outside of marriage is sinful? Those words? No. Its about how to avoid sexual immorality, not what sex is immoral. It says the solution to avoiding sexual sin is to have a spouse.
Why? Probably because as Paul teaches in the very next verses: they’re available for sex whenever desired. Its to reliable way to keep you satisfied.
That doesn’t mean other sex is prohibited, it never says that and that would contradict the OT. It could simply mean this is the best way and that things like abstinence or masturbation won’t work well enough. Or it could mean the Corinthians were avoiding marriage in imitation of Paul and instead doing the usual Greek thing and having sex with men (an abomination, hence the BURN with passion).
You know, 1 Cor 7 is a lot like the OT. The OT never says marriage is the ideal place for sex, but it sets up a system where most sex is in marriage. Most women are married off as virgins (forcefully if necessary). A women falsely passed off as virgins is stoned, making sure fathers kept their daughters chaste. And widows are married to the brother of the husband. Not a ton of other options; most women are married off. And if one wife is not enough you can have two or three of four; which really ought to keep you busy.
Yet un-ideal and sinful are not the same thing. The OT didn’t make all sexual relations outside of marriage prohibited. It simply didn’t. There were still other women available for sex that weren’t prohibited (such as divorced women, despoiled virgins who didn’t marry, slaves, prostitutes, etc).
That may not fit your church tradition or modern sensibilities, but thats the way God laid it down. I’m not going to teach as commandments the traditions of men just to avoid feel bads among the flock.
Slave girls weren’t available for sex unless you were going to make them into a full wife.
I agree with part of your point Earl. They were married even though they did not have intercourse. But sexual relations are implied because it explicitly says he did not know (in a sexual manner) his wife until Jesus was born. That directly implies he did know here at some point after that. It does not indicate he stayed celibate his entire life, even though RCC doctrine asserts that.
The sex act joins 2 people, but it does not marry them. The joining to the prostitute is the problem, not the marriage to the prostitute, to counter foolishness from others.
That may be so MJ, I’m not entirely sure.
There is also the issue of concubines, which I haven’t wrapped my head around yet. They were clearly allowed in the OT but are not wives and so prohibited by Dalrock’s interpretation of scripture. Another contradiction.
AT,
People in houses made completely of glass should not through stones for the most part.
Or better yet, “Pot meet kettle….”
Gary Eden,
Many things may be lawful, but many things are still not profitable.
Derek,
The father is not compelled to accept the marriage, thus the sex itself did not make it a marriage.
Straining at gnats and swallowing camels much some of you?
Then what was a concubine? David had a few as did Solomon.
The offspring of concubines are treated like the children of a regular wife. Beyond that, years of search hasn’t found an answer. Jewish tradition says one thing, Roman tradition another, and the Bible doesn’t go into much detail. Remember, Abraham also had concubines, and God never spoke ill of the institution. I have one last resource I plan to check for the meaning of “concubine” pilyegesh in Hebrew. In modern Hebrew a pilyegesh is just a girlfriend or fuck-buddy, but schtupping a man’s concubine had pretty bad consequences, look at the story of David and Absolom, where Absolom slept with his father’s concubines.
I fully agree. Just like I agree all girls should be married off as young virgins and sex is best done within the confines of marriage.
Our real problem isn’t that men are having sex outside of marriage. Our problem is that the churchian culture is delaying marriage beyond what is reasonable and doing nothing to ensure the purity of their daughters. Start providing large numbers of chaste, godly women who want to become housewives and mothers at a young age and most of this problem goes away.
But they want to have it both ways. They want to delay marriage and allow their women to sleep around with bad boys while painting every single way Christian men could get sexual release as sinful.
Its not really about what is sin, its about maximally freeing women while maximally restricting men. Matriarchy. They just use ‘sin’ as a currency when speaking to churchians.
Bible study has revealed this much: a concubine is a type of wife, a sub-class of the set of wives. Jewish tradition said it was a wife without a marriage contract, so perhaps a woman from a poor family marrying a rich man, and she doesn’t get anything from the rich man other than the right for her sons to inherit along with his other sons. The last resource I plan to check is with the Israelite Samaritans, who have lived the Law of Moses since it was delivered at Sinai, and without any Talmudic interpretations nullifying it.
Looking at the word concubine linguistically, in Hebrew, it could be literally translated as “fuck-toy”. That isn’t a common translation, but the etymology allows it. It is suggestive of the general lower status of concubines; she isn’t high enough status to be his full wife, but she can join the family by being young and pretty and good at sex. Sort of like the consort/mistress concept in Catholic Europe. Mistresses weren’t supposed to sleep around, but be monogamous with their lover.
@MJ:
“Bible doesn’t go into much detail.”
Maybe that is the key? Various cultures have different specifics, but in general it seems like a catchall for ‘woman that man has sex with thats not his wife or a prostitute’? Thats also the literal definition given by wikipedia. Though I’d be happier with a tighter definition from the Hebrews.
We have many terms for these today (girlfriend, fuck buddy, baby mamma, etc). Though the various ancient understandings seem to be various forms of what was once called a mistress. Which is to be expected in a pre-pill pre-babyless sex world.
Where do you get that?
Mycroft Jones says: August 10, 2017 at 3:35 am
Also, in addition the Tamar story, look at the story of Dinah and Shechem. Shechem took her virginity, then he said to his father “go, get her for me as a wife”, and so his father went to her father to negotiate a marriage. Ergo, she was no longer a virgin, but wasn’t marriaged. And for treating her like a whore, her brothers slaughtered the entire city.
way to prang that up.
a – Schechem was not Hebrew, thus not subject to their law
b – even IF he was abiding by Hebrew Law, it would *require Jacob’s consent*, otherwise the he is at risk of her father voiding the marriage, as has already been pointed out. this does NOT mean that she was NOT married, it means that the marriage in which she has already joined herself to a man was voided by her father.
c – Dinah may not be a “whore” but she certainly IS a slut. she was a rich farmer’s daughter who got all her girlfriends together and took an unsupervised vacay in the big city. while there, she attracted the attention of one of the king’s sons. yeah, just like she was trying to do. she was ALL ABOUT not giving up the poontang. sure she wasn’t. because nobody has ever seen this story before.
yes, Jacob did screw that up royally by ever permitting the Girls Gone Wild spring break in the first place. but, you know, that’s hardly the only example of a Patriarch failing to exercise proper authority over their children in the OT
d – Jacob AGREED to the marriage which had already been consummated, as was entirely his right and responsibility as Father and head of household to make this decision
e – thus Simeon and Levi are not merely guilty of the murder of an entire city of new converts to Judaism and the Law and the worship of the True God, they are also in direct rebellion against their Father. what does the Law require as punishment of rebellious sons?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A18-21&version=KJV
sounds a lot like Jonah, eh? rather risk dying themselves than have a city of Gentiles repenting and abiding by the Law.
f – thus, Jacob is ALSO sinning against the Law for failing to discipline his sons ( mind you, this is the same sin as King David with respect to Amnon, and the hardness of the father’s heart likewise brings further disaster )
g – which is why Simeon and Levi would go on to attempt to murder their own brother, the only decent one in the whole family
protip:
anytime you’re going to cite the actions of Simeon and Levi as approval for some point you’re trying to make, that’s the moment when you should realize you’re being a damn retard. they can never be mistaken for moral exemplars of the Law.
if you’re going to cite Simeon and Levi for examples of how the Law works, then you should also be following the example of Cain for maintaining domestic harmony between siblings.
9767 says: August 10, 2017 at 10:25 am
Those of you saying pre-marital sex was not condemned in the OT are wrong. It is condemned in
Deuteronomy 22:21, in the case of a woman who is sexually promiscuous prior to marriage:
you’re having a really hard time tracking this.
IF
a virgin is married to the man who takes her maidenhead, by the act of Consumation
AND
holding a marriage ceremony with some subsequent hapless schmuck ( who, by the by, would also have paid her father a bride price ) who wasn’t the sexy Alpha who tagged her first
THEN
the attempted ceremonial marriage to the schmuck IS ADULTERY on her part.
and, of course, the Lawful consequence for Adultery is death. which is exactly what Deut 22:21 calls for.
it seems the Law is quite consistent on this.
Derek Ramsey says: August 10, 2017 at 1:27 pm
Adonijah wanted to make a political claim to the throne by claiming David’s property and marrying Abishag.
true.
the problem being that Abishag had been the ceremonial wife of his father … thus incest under the Law.
this is why there was nothing wrong with David taking Saul’s wives … David and Saul were not related, thus there was no incest violation to be made.
earlthomas786 says: August 10, 2017 at 6:22 pm
I guess that means Mary was never married to Joseph…
considering that the NT says that Jesus had siblings
AND
that you assert that Joseph never consummated his marriage
THEN
i guess that means that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were also born of a virgin due to the Holy Spirit visiting Mary multiple times.
wonder why we never hear anything of signficance about these other Sons of God?
yes, i’m well aware of all the ridiculous hoops the Catholic / Orthodox jump through to try to say that these verses don’t mean what they quite clearly say.
on sex with slaves….Exodus 21:7-10 goes over that. Not wives, but afforded much the same protections. Not called a concubine either.
English concubine comes from Latin, literally ‘to lie down together’ so ya, fuck buddy.
Couldn’t find an etymology on the Hebrew word for concubine, but it is a loan word meaning mistress. Used that way in the OT without much comment. Often giving children. Similar to Greek word for concubine which came from word ‘entice’.
What we call today girlfriend, long term relationship or cohabiting is basically the same thing as what the Hebrews called a concubine. Todays those are considered sinful, but not in the Old Testament, they just called her a concubine and considered her to have lower status.
>Remember, you are speaking to someone who looked for most of my late teens and most of my twenties without success.
Ditto.
My best chances for marriage were when I was in Ukraine. If you are looking for a wife, and find nothing but rebellious, masculine women in your area, consider searching elsewhere.
And do not tie yourself down with debt so that you feel you cannot afford to take a few months off to go look for something (marriage) that is so valuable. That was my mistake. In essence, I treated money (or debt servicing) as more important than marriage. So now I have success in money, but only good success in marriage. The “good success” being the successful avoidance of marriage with an unworthy woman.
bob k. mando says:
August 11, 2017 at 1:50 am
The circumstances you have described [Deut.22:13-21] are condemned as playing the whore [H2182} in her father’s house . The word adultery doesn’t appear in the passage. According to my trusty esword the word whore [zanah H#2181] is only used in the OT for harlot, whore, whoredom and so on. It never is used as adultery.
She was guilty of pre-marital sex as Mycroft Jones stated. Aka fornication in the KJV. Jesus gave this as grounds for divorce in Matt. 19:9
Basically trying to reduce marriage to mere intercourse is trying to circumvent authority of the outward declaration of marriage. It’s a way to try and rationalize fornication. If marriage is just PiV…then there’s some players out there have plenty of ‘wives’ that can claim spousal support. You know the current court system wouldn’t mind going that route.
And I bet if that happened those who claim PiV only is marriage will backtrack their statement faster than you can say spousal support.
@Mycroft Jones: Hamster has his flaws, but he is correct about two becoming into one. It isn’t talking about having children. There is a spiritual and DNA level union that happens during the sex act, and modern science has been discovering that telogeny is a real thing.
Children are the fruit of marriage. You will read that the covenant with God is likened to a marriage covenant; the analogy is not to indicate there is some spiritual joining but that God produces fruit–these are “fleshy” fruits like being secure (physically safe) in the land of mike and honey (real food).
A man and a woman become one flesh; that flesh we call “child”.
@Gary
>What we call today girlfriend, long term relationship or cohabiting is basically the same thing as what the Hebrews called a concubine. Todays those are considered sinful, but not in the Old Testament, they just called her a concubine and considered her to have lower status.
A concubine is just a low status wife, she may or may not be a slave but she’s essentially just a wife given less consideration. Abrahams wife keturah is called both wife and concubine.
Gen 25:1-2
1Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah
2And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah
And then the same woman called a concubine:
1 Chronicles 1:32
32Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.
Slave and servant wives were concubines and possessed less status than those called wife but possessed the same responsibility that they be taken care of financially. You don’t handle your girlfriends expenses or feed and clothe her, modern gfs are more like floating rate prostitutes than they are like concubines.
@SirHamster: But out of curiousity: Are multiple children one flesh, or multiple fleshes?
Roughly speaking, a male body and a female body undergo gametogenesis producing a male gamete and a female gamete. The gametes may join shortly after the male and female engage in coitus. The joined gametes become a zygote which grows into an embryo which then grows into a fetus which is then born as a human. A zygote has no option to revert to what were the gametes–it’s life or death thenceforth.
In short, a unique male and a unique female produce a unique child. The child is not quite the same as the father but may be in the spirit of the father (i.e. heritable traits); the child is not quite the same as the mother but may be in the spirit of the mother. Two have become one.
Your question is a non-sequitur; you may as well pose yourself “am I one flesh or many fleshes?”
@Joules: “If lesbian sex and prostitution are not violations of gods law and there is such a thing as moral prostitution, will we see the rise of evangelizing whore houses?”
The Children of God cult tried that back in the seventies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flirty_Fishing
I know personally, because when I was in the Navy in the Seattle area in 1975, one tried her wiles on me.
Don’t know if anybody has brought up this info before, but has anyone
noticed how the application of the marriage ceremony is the inverse/reverse of the Biblical model?
We see the model shown when The Bible refers to the rapture.
Try telling a Church woman to do it the Biblical way. We see
BIBLICAL: Bride waits for Groom at home, who then takes her to the venue
MODERN: Groom waits for Bride at Venue
BIBLICAL: Groom arrives at home & takes away Bride to take her to venue
MODERN: Wife arrives at venue THEN Groom takes her
“The Children of God cult tried that back in the seventies:”
AT sounds like a hodgepodge of every weird, heretical sex cult in church history, starting with the church at Corinth.
@Joules – “You don’t handle your girlfriends expenses or feed and clothe her, modern gfs are more like floating rate prostitutes than they are like concubines.”
Not sure about that, it sounds like the Sugar Daddy/Baby arraignment would model the Biblical concubine.
@Don Quixote – If sex before marriage is fornication, then can’t anyone divorce their wife who didn’t marry a virgin according to Matt. 19:9?
All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery.
I’m just going to raise the same argument I’ve raised in the past. We can’t even have a conversation about marriage as marriage outlined in the OT and NT doesn’t even exist in our culture today. So why even talk about today’s marriages, sex and scripture. With the state destroying marriage it’s time to make two definitions of marriage. State sanctioned marriage and Christ sanctioned marriage.
If the Church can create their own (non state) marriages then apply scriptures all you want regarding sex, etc. But you can apply scripture to what we have today. It is not Godly, it is not Holy and it is not marriage. Only God can define what he meant by marriage and what we have today isn’t what God ordained. So when the church figures out a way to have marriages without the State polluting it with it’s policies then lets start a conversation. Otherwise all conversation is meaningless.
@Joules: “If lesbian sex and prostitution are not violations of gods law and there is such a thing as moral prostitution, will we see the rise of evangelizing whore houses?”
Yes, there were certain Gnostic/Christian sects that tried just that – common love/marriage and all that. This is the source of what St. Paul was getting at in 1 Corinthians. Temple prostitutes were used to bring in followers and money to the cult. Christians were not to do this, according to him.
But, St. Paul was just warning his followers at Corinth about how prostitutes lead one astray from the true religion (look up the Sin of Balaam and the women of Moab).
“Not sure about that, it sounds like the Sugar Daddy/Baby arraignment would model the Biblical concubine.”
Not really. It was a lifetime commitment to take care of them, not just when they’re young and hot.
Dalrock,
Maybe you could create a post regarding the Church creating their own non state marriages.
@Paniyam – Here, here. But the question arises again, what do we do? How many people can take their virgin bride and head for the hills to turn their back on the world? Maybe we should all just go full Amish.
Minesweeper,
You are wrong, and don’t know what you are talking about. The word woman used by Jesus in Matthew 5:28 (Gune, best attempt), can be used when talking about women, whether they are married or unmarried.
Mycroft Jones,
There was nothing special about the Greek used in the New Testament. It was Koine Greek, a language commonly spoken throughout the Roman world at that time.
Of course, everyone uses the name drop of Mark Driscoll to try to disqualify. Might as well try to call me a racist. He is right, though. Dalrock went over it some time back with the whole Wayne Grudem deal, and Greek word studies on Kephlae. Feminists said the Greek could also mean, source. They are wrong, but the scurried to the Greek in the first place BECAUSE they hated what the Word of God told them, clearly, in English.
You all are the same as those feminists. Thinking Matthew 5:28 means wife, only. Therefore, wank to single women. Or, thinking it means something special, like coveting to take as a wife, thus, as long as you just wank, and don’t really wish to marry her, you’re fine.
@MKT – I don’t know about concubines being a lifetime contract.
According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 21a), the difference between a pilegesh and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrew:ketubah) and her marriage (nissu’in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (“kiddushin”), which was not the case with the former. According to R. Judah, however, the pilegesh should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.
Granted, this is merely Wikipedia scholarship.
Paniym-
Marriage today may not be what God intends, but that assumes that there was a time before when it was perfect. If there was ever a flaw in marriage, such as it was, then we could claim lack of perfection. We have commands from God to follow, and we ought to do so. Saying conditions aren’t currently ideal amounts to excuse-making.
Understanding when a deal is bad and better to not enter into is not excuse making. You can stick your head in the wood chipper, go ahead.
Why don’t you guys just come out and say it. Every Christian man must never wank, never think about women in a sexual way and wait to get into a bad deal when he is older and more established. Say it and then go.
“I don’t know about concubines being a lifetime contract.”
Lets’s stick with the Bible instead of other ancient Near Eastern sources filtered through Wikipedia. If the Bible gave no time limits (“ye shall take care of her untl she appeareth no longer hot…”), then men were to take care of them indefinitely.
I’d also refrain from comparing anything from current times (like sugar daddies) to Biblical times. AT does this and it’s one reason his blog starts with something that looks a couple of Penthouse models in a hot tub (thought the pic is safe for work). He wants to live like a 21st century rapper and tries to find proof texts to support this. Among other logical fallacies, he’s begging the question.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging_the_Question
That’s why I won’t even get into a spitting contest with him about individual verses. He loses the debate prima facie.
“Why don’t you guys just come out and say it. Every Christian man must never wank, never think about women in a sexual way and wait to get into a bad deal when he is older and more established. Say it and then go.”
Someone loves his porn/fapping habit, that’s for sure. Being enslaved to sin is a beast, as I can say from personal experience.
@ys, “You are wrong, and don’t know what you are talking about. The word woman used by Jesus in Matthew 5:28 (Gune, best attempt), can be used when talking about women, whether they are married or unmarried.”
” They are wrong, but the scurried to the Greek in the first place BECAUSE they hated what the Word of God told them, clearly, in English.
You all are the same as those feminists. Thinking Matthew 5:28 means wife, only. ”
actually its the feminists (male+female) in the church who LOVE the fact this verse condemns almost all men at all times unless you are wearing a blindfold and even the evil men have “thoughts” without looking. so i guess your the feminist here, the Word of God was never spoken nor written in English.
a translation is just that, if your going to choose a hill to die on you had better ensure the group you are trusting to translate for you got it right.
Look at Mat5:31, same word used for women\wife, spoken within seconds of Jesus saying 5:28. Now this can only mean wife in v31 as its talking about divorce.
and again I will ask you to explain to me why this ONLY refers to looking at WOMEN ?
but ys you have clearly made your choice in this matter, you want to continue to believe a wrongful understanding that is used to destroy families and promote unlawful divorces in the eyes of God.
Feministhater,
Throughout the Bible, there is a trend of men screwing up sexually. And God makes very little deal out of it. Look at the situation with Judah and his daughter in law. I think in a lot of cases, the punishment is built in to the sin in those cases. I don’t believe God is going around with a rubber mallet whack-a-moling everyone every time they watch porn and get off. But it does have an effect. It is causing problems in those individuals’ lives and well being.
Just like Judah, just like David, God can take our mistakes and keep on building and make something good out of it. That doesn’t belie the original sin. The standard is still the standard.
I’m not going to sit here and pretend like I fit the standard currently or ever have since about 12 at least. But the standard is 1. not to engage in impure thoughts and 2. not to engage in lascivious or licentious behavior. Masturbation and pornography fail on both counts. Covetousness is to desire anything that is not rightly yours. Pornogrpahy is engaging in covetousness. As is lusting after someone else’s wife, maid, or concubine.
Saying “You people don’t want…” may be an accurate statement. I do believe the cards are stacked against men in churches. I think a bunch of very petty, arrogant, windbags are running our churches these days and they love to have their ears itched by bitter, rebellious women. But while their ways and means are completely jacked up, they are also right in what they’re saying, even if their conclusions are ridiculous and unfair. Your problem is not with other people. Your problem is with God, which is to say, your problem is with you and your sin.
The Bible says if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us AND to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That’s something you’re going to have to go to God with. And it’s a two-fold sin, your thoughts and your actions. He can and will cleanse you of those sins if you give him the chance. You won’t move on with him until you do.
@MKT – How can we have a debate about what the Bible means when we cannot use the historical context about those words when they were written? The Hebrews definitely saw a concubine different than a wife. We also have to look at the historical context about fornication as well.
Sure, it’s never been perfect but there were protections provided and headship was assumed. It happened when he was young enough not to have to go through 15 years of abstinence. There is a difference that you refuse to take into consideration. Once taken into account, getting married becomes a fool’s business. You’re going to get married to a person who can call the police anytime and get you arrested. Can make false claims of abuse and/or rape and turn your life to shit, can divorce you at the drop of a hat, take your life’s earnings, your children and lead you to suicide. There is no help for you, your church will disown you, your friends will disown you, society will turn its back on. By getting married, your solution, men end up in hell anyway. You get that, right. They end up in hell anyway.
The difference, ys, is that women have been turned and used as a weapon against men, you cannot marry your enemy. The solution cannot be to just suck it up and get married for that does nothing to solve sexual frustration within men, it’s not a logical argument. Man can no longer fulfill his need for sex by getting married. Restating that he can is not true. Most men will simply not be able to follow this anymore.
I’ll say it again, just lay it all out. What you are saying is that men are to serve at the behest of women for they are not allowed to seek alternatives elsewhere. They are not to wank, not to think about women sexually, all they can do is go about their lives in pure agony. Since women have all the power in the relationship, men must either quiescence and submit to their wives or become loners, loved by no one. I told you before, tell men the truth, stop telling to make a bad decision that will crush them. Give them the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Lay it all out there.
It’s get married and get a little sex but place yourself in precarious situation that can lead to your demise or learn to live with no sexual contact, no marriage and overcome over many years of a hellish existence but eventually break free once your big head overpowers your little head. Say it. Tell men to leave marriage behind or become the tradcon fuckwit you’ve always wanted to be.
BillyS sez:
I don’t think so. The fact that you don’t happen to agree with him doesn’t make him an idiot. He argues well and always debates the real issues. His opponents personalize and sexualize their arguments, because they’re stupid and/or lazy, and he calls them out for it. That’s acceptable in my playbook (though admittedly it’s a waste of time).
Regards,
Boxer
@Paniym
There are two problems with this:
1) The problem isn’t so much divorce laws (assets/alimony) as child support. Child support is the family model we have adopted to replace marriage, and this new model is always operative at one level or another, for every family. Even state recognized marriages are always convertible to the child support model at a whim. Not legally marrying doesn’t take you out of this model, it merely avoids the legal facade.
2) The church loves the new model, as they see it as a vast improvement. The problem isn’t that modern Christians are uncomfortable with headship/submission. They want an incredibly muscular version of headship and submission, they just want the sex roles reversed. Threats of divorce are their primary tool to encourage this reversed model, and for threats of divorce to be credible there needs to be a steady stream of husbands crushed to serve as examples to keep the others in line. If you had a church that didn’t love the new model, or loved it less than they loved Scripture, they could exert an immense amount of social/moral pressure that would cut divorce rates at least in half.
I’ve had so many attacks from you pious lot today. Yet I haven’t condoned porn, I haven’t condoned extra-marital affairs, I haven’t condoned any of these sins. I’ve only ever stated that you have given men no means to get the solution God has given them.
You can keep telling them that marriage is the answer but clearly, by looking at the stats, the well being of divorced men, suicide rates of divorced men and the lack of society support or even church support leads me to believe you are all full of shit.
Marriage is dead, our own church failed to protect. It doesn’t exist guys, it’s not there. Perhaps in another 100 years but for now, men need to learn and be told the truth, it does not exist.
Dear MKT:
The punchline: Some of the same guys who insist that masturbation is cool were having a fit, just a few weeks ago, when we were discussing oral and anal sex. There is room for debate about these things.
One of the old Jesuits who taught me as an undergrad would probably tell all y’all that masturbation falls into the same category of degenerate sex as schtupping your wife in the mouth or anus.
In the Christian interpretation of sex that I was taught, there were three parts:
1. Recreation
2. Procreation
3. Affection
If you’re privileging one or two of these facets at the expense of another, then you’re doing it wrong.
Banging your hand, banging your wife in the mouth, banging your wife in the butt, banging another dude (or, if a chick, another chick), using chemical or barrier birth control, etc. is all frowned upon. Christians believe there is a proper way to have sex (just as they believe there are proper ways to eat a meal) and they have standards.
I have read the new testament, and I agree with Christian bros that none of these things are explicitly forbidden; but, in a general sense, when you make a holy act into an act of mindless self-indulgence, you’re probably not living the discipline. That goes for lots of stuff.
Best,
Boxer
Minesweeper-
And you want to continue believe an interpretation of the verse that allows you to wank to your heart’s content, as long as it’s not someone else’s wife.
Someone misusing the truth for evil doesn’t make it false.
Thanks FeministHater for sticking up for my premise as I don’t think YS has personally seen the effects of the corruption of marriage today.
Just recently divorced after a 40 year marriage I don’t think that anyone can accuse me of not “sucking it up”. FeministHater, your points above are spot on.
Feministhater,
It’s hard to make the statement, “I’m not going to sit here and pretend like I fit the standard currently or ever have since about 12 at least.” and be counted in the ranks of the “pious lot” the way you intend it. I’m in the ship with you, also bailing water.
Marriage is not dead until God disannuls it. He set it up. He set the rules. Regardless of what we, the church, the world, or women do with it, it is his ordinance that establishes it.
That is hard in the current environment, but it doesn’t change the requirements. I don’t think doing everything the Bible says to do in marriage gives you a perfect marriage. There’s another person in it and how many different personal and social landmines just waiting to wreck it. You have to accept that first. God is right. End of story. Then work backwards from there.
FH-
You say you never support masterbation…but:
“I’ll say it again, just lay it all out. What you are saying is that men are to serve at the behest of women for they are not allowed to seek alternatives elsewhere. They are not to wank, not to think about women sexually, all they can do is go about their lives in pure agony. ”
Anyone with a clue would know what you are saying with that statement. Just say it. Don’t be dishonest about it.
Now, to your other stuff, the truth is the truth, regardless. You say, “What are we supposed to tell men? They live in agony, and it’s hard.” Tell them the truth. Wanking is a sin. Hard truth? Yes. Truth? Yes.
What you advocate is no different than pretending hell is not real to someone who just lost a non-Christian family member. “What are you supposed to tell them? That their parent/spouse/child is in hell? Until you Christians have something else to offer, you can save it.”
The truth is the truth. Stop reframing what I am saying. I am not telling you that you must get married. Not at all. What I am saying is that, yes, marriage is the only legit sexual outlet, that is not sin. You can say marriage is compromised, and you won’t get married. Very well. But then accept celibacy, and no sexual release. That’s what the Bible teaches. So, ManUp! and don’t get married, but don’t justify sin.
Dear MKT:
He actually sounds exactly like my own (Mormon) cousins… except for the fact that he’s not a welfare parasite, he’s well educated, and he’s intelligent enough to have thought up some convoluted lines of reasoning why he believes his lifestyle coheres with the New Testament.
My cousins have only one advantage on Toad: They don’t call themselves Christians. I think it’s important to be honest with oneself, and I think Toad would benefit by calling himself something else.
In any event, I live in America, where the first amendment allows for people to be Nazis, Satanists, Feminists, or any number of other things I disagree with, provided they behave themselves. I have no problem with Toad. I just wish he would quit confusing people by labeling himself something that he’s not.
Best,
Boxer
Dalrock,
I know you are correct as it doesn’t matter what form of marriage you create.
For one, the feminist infested church is so corrupt that what they create will as bad or worse than what the state has created.
Two, No matter what form of marriage is created the state will still override it and corrupt it.
@Artisanal Toad
No. Both of those passages are explaining that sin is rebellion against God and His instructions. Eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil was not part of the Law. But it was a transgression against the specific instructions God gave Adam. Romans 5:12-14:
And Romans 15:13-15
Ironically you are using these two passages to argue that you can disregard the instructions you are given in the NT (1 Cor 7), and only follow the Law. This is the exact opposite of what Paul was saying.
Paniym-
Actually, my parents got divorced when I was quite young. I hate divorce.
Yep, step right up gents, into that minefield you go! That’s the tradcon way, we need more food for the grinder!
@ys, “And you want to continue believe an interpretation of the verse that allows you to wank to your heart’s content”
I dont consider consider that sinful, a bodily function is about as sinful as going to the toilet or breathing or exercising but there are certainly branches of Christianity that consider many things are sinful that arn’t. As Paul says, these rules give the appearance of wisdom but are in fact foolishness.
You obviously consider the above sinful and once again you are clearly unable to answer the question I have given you twice. No point asking it again. Are there any questions you can answer ? Just for future reference.
l will mark you down into the “divorce him for looking at porn” crowd.
Feministhater,
Doesn’t have anything to do with politics. You’re referring to yourself as a Christian. That puts you under the authority of scripture. If that is an accurate assessment, then you are obligated to obey scripture regardless of what the tradcons or neolibs or neocons or classicallibs or anarchocapitalists say.
I’m not jumping on the man up bandwagon. You can’t get through this thing, though, unless you start with the first principles. God is always right.
I’ve already stated it long ago. I stated quite clearly that since you leave men with no option, they will sin, they will sin until they come to terms and are able to live the single life. Then they will be able to repent and seek redemption for their sins.
I’m just telling you that the church is sending them off to sin for no one can provide them with no other alternative to years and years of celibacy before they might eventually get married and still get no sex.
They’ve been led into temptation by the one institution that was meant to save them from it. Nice, eh?
To clarify, what Paul is saying is that sin is a rebellion against the will of God, and the will of God doesn’t change. Yet we are not held accountable for violating instructions that have yet to be revealed.
This wasn’t saying that all we have to do is follow the Law. He is saying that Adam was held accountable for disobeying the instructions God had given him. That is the original sin. Once the Law was given, it would have been sin for the Israelites to say “we need only avoid eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and we are good”. Yet you want to do the same, disregarding NT instruction and only following the Law. Again, this was the opposite of what Paul was explaining.
You’re demanding men step into a minefield of horror to get scraps of food. However, even before he can step onto the minefield, in has to wait for decades with no food or water, starving. After he has learned to survive starving, he must then go out into the minefield, with no mine detector and hope for the kitchen scraps; or choose to go home hungry for the rest of his days until he dies.
“I dont consider consider that sinful, a bodily function is about as sinful as going to the toilet or breathing or exercising”
You can consider what you want, but that’s not what the Bible says. “That each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God” 1 Thessalonians 4:4-5
That’s one of many verses like it. Paul’s epistles are full of them. Going to take a whiz and fapping are completely different things. That’s a false analogy if I ever heard one.
To answer your other complaint, FH, you have said that men have to wait decades…implying late marriage. While this is generally true, there are exceptions. Family friend is 21, getting married in three months. Family wedding three years ago…22 year old groom. There are exceptions.
Of course, the odds are, statistically, against that. But every pro football player made it to the NFL, despite the odds. Should they have told themselves, “The odds are against me, guess I won’t make it,” and then quit? You are in charge of your life. Be the exception. Beat the odds. Or, stay single, but don’t complain.
Incidentally, the church doesn’t save men, God does.
Minesweeper-
Not trying to duck your question. I occasionally skim. I can only imagine what people do to my longer comments.
This question: Why does the verse only refer to looking at women?
If that’s the question, what is the point? You mean, why didn’t Christ refer to masterbation? Why He didn’t include looking at men, also, if one were homosexual? I could answer your question, but what are you driving at?
The masterbation one, to guess that is your point, is easy. Merely looking with lust is sin. To physically act upon it (Which is what masterbation is ) is obviously also a sin, and moreso, if merely looking is one.
@ys, “Wanking is a sin. Hard truth? Yes. Truth? Yes.” – LOL
you have a scripture verse for that in your translations ? now remember if the bible is not shy talking about people copulating with animals – then it wont be shy about saying that exactly if its a problem.
Good luck on your quest ! btw adding to the bible is sin. which you clearly are. enjoy putting extra burdens on people ? oh yeah there are verses on that too.
“To answer your other complaint, FH, you have said that men have to wait decades…implying late marriage. While this is generally true, there are exceptions. Family friend is 21, getting married in three months. Family wedding three years ago…22 year old groom. There are exceptions.”
I have a friend whose son got married in college (around 21) and his 19-year old is close to getting engaged. It helps to be in a church and social circle where that’s accepted and even encouraged. I’d say that’s a better alternative than simply whining about the problem.
St. Paul only gave two options…if you burn with passion then get married as to avoid sin (that even includes the bad deal with marriage today) or stay celibate for the kingdom of God. Being bitter about not having sex when you want it because of whatever bad hand has been dealt tells me that’s the more important god than a relationship with God.
Oh sure ys, exceptions, exceptions, exceptions. Old. The amount of divorces, unhappy marriages, sexless marriages and just okay marriages vastly, vastly, over represent the majority of marriages that ever happen. The age of first marriage has been ticking up progressively for years.
It’s like seeing the black and ominous clouds, with the loud roar of thunder and the blinding flashes of lightning, telling your to go back but there’s ‘ys’ telling you, “I knew a friend who survived a lightning strike once, go ahead, it’ll be fine!”.
Minesweeper-
And for real, you don’t consider fapping a sin, b/c it’s a bodily function? What caused that bodily function? Rape, adultery, etc. must also be okay, b/c they are bodily functions?
Sure, if you are going to break it down to the very basic level, having an emission is not sin. What caused it, might be.
@ys
“Thinking matthew 5:28 means wife, only. Therefore, wank to single women. Or, thinking it means something special, like coveting to take as a wife, thus, as long as you just wank, and don’t really wish to marry her, you’re fine”…….end quote
You truly are pathetic, and I might add, grasping at straws as well.
The reason we KNOW IMPLICITLY that Jesus is talking about a wife as opposed to a single woman is because the very issue being discussed here in Matthew 5:28 is ADULTERY. ….in fact Jesus even told you explicitly that he’s talking about adultery because he says “….by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery” ….where in the flippen blue blazes is adultery even mentioned by them of old time (referencing the OT), except the LAW
It is Jesus himself who established the foundation and context of Matthew 5 so this is why we know that the “woman” referred to are MARRIED WOMEN because adultery can only occur in God’s eyes by having sex with a WIFE who belongs to an husband
That is GOD’S definition of adultery not mine, so when you reject what God says you show me you’re nothing but a filthy apostate bible corrector who is desperate to change what God says in order to uphold your disgusting shaming tactics to belittle men who “wank over porn ”
You can’t uphold your spurious anti sex garbage IF Jesus is not talking about adultery in Matthew 5, so what YOU and others have done in this comment section is to deliberately change what Christ said in the text and PRETEND he wasn’t talking about adultery
This sinful commission on your part to alter God’s words makes you not only a self righteous pharisee, but a true feminist in my eyes…..as no one hates men more for their God given sexual urges than feminists do
I’m still waiting on the specific verse in Scripture that says ‘by Bible/Scripture alone’.
MKT-
Exactly. I have similar thoughts when I see some say that there are no (as in, zero) virginal, young women who are following Christ. It’s not common anymore, of course, but I know some. It’s the circles you run in. When men say they know zero, it reveals much to me about their social circle, which matters, because we tend to group ourselves around our spiritual equals.
Yes, everyone knows this. However, why is Paul telling them to get married if they burn with passion?
A reply to an article refuting the traditional(mis)interpretation of Matthew 5 sums it up well:
Jesus was, in this passage, describing the futility of trying to live a perfect life according to the law, and thus the universal need for forgiveness and grace. Love your enemies, don’t call people fools, divorce is bad, etc.. No one but no one has ever lived perfectly according to the law — WHICH WAS THE POINT!
So, He said to a bunch of guys that the law says don’t commit adultery, but that if you really want to be perfectly pure, then you can’t even look lustfully. Unsaid, but understood by any guy, was “and you know you do that pretty much constantly, don’t you? In fact, Mark, would you please stop looking at Martha’s chest long enough for me to finish my point?”
This was an illustration of a point, not the creation of a new law. It’s weird how people don’t get that Jesus didn’t rebuke the Pharisees for legalism just to come in and make stricter, more-impossible laws.
Another way to ask the question. If one burns with passion and does not get married, what happens?
FH-
Two answers to your two questions.
1) Paul tells them to get married because marriage is the only non-sinful way for Christians to achieve sexual satisfaction. Given that he was also saying in 1 Cor. 7 that single people can do more for the kingdom, if there was ever a time, that is when he would have said, “never mind, don’t get married. Do more for the kingdom while single, and just have a couple of wanks a week if you burn.”
2) If one burns and does not get married, you are in for a difficult path. One full of temptation to sin. Paul urged spouses to satisfy each other, sexually, so there was no temptation to sin for those spouses. If you burn, and have no spouse for the lawful satisfaction of that burning, you are in temptation to sin in a very big way.
MKT @ August 10, 2017 at 7:39 pm:
“AT’s starting point seems to be “I wanna live like Hugh Hefner and Muhammad rolled up into one. How can I take some proof texts and build a theology around that”?”
I don’t know who he’s trying to fool either. God isn’t going to say “I didn’t want you to whore across town like you did but you exploited loopholes in my words so well that I’m not allowed to find fault with you. Well done, faithful servant! Had you been any less clever, I’d have damned you to Hell.”
…
feministhater @ 9:08 am:
“I’ll say it again, just lay it all out. What you are saying is that men are to serve at the behest of women for they are not allowed to seek alternatives elsewhere. “They are not to wank, not to think about women sexually, all they can do is go about their lives in pure agony”
Yes, unfortunately. God demands sex only inside marriage and society demands sex only outside marriage. That leaves us nowhere to go. I went through this myself, not impressively, and it was pure Hell.
The day is coming when God will give us justice. Until then, God openly promised we would suffer in His service. The Baby Boomers & Churchians don’t get to tell us to suck it up but God does, and He wrote Ephesians 5:3. Not even a hint of sexual immorality.
feministhater:
The same choice that every Christian ultimately faces: take up your cross and follow Him, or the Lake of Fire.
There we go. Nicely done. Since the church and society have made marriage such a bad deal for men and have delayed the marriage age so far into the future…. what they have in effect done is increase the magnitude of temptation for the average Christian Joe into the stratosphere and then everyone wonders and demands why they are sinning and looking at porn?
You still don’t get it though, do you? They’ve created the very problem they complain about. It’s not the men, stupid, it’s the institution.
The reason Paul stated that you must get married if you burn with passion is because if you do not, you will sin. That’s all there is to it. So… we now have a situation where the choice to get married if you burn with passion is removed and so now the statement has to read that “men who burn with passion will sin until they stop burning with passion” which what I was trying to say all along.
Pretty much every human being “burns with passion” in a generic sense. The sex drive is as natural and universal as hunger. One difference is that you have to eat to live, wheras you won’t die if you are deprived of sexual release. Another is that every morally-acting person will go through long periods of sexual deprivation in their lifetimes for one reason or another: no spouse, sick spouse, etc.
One reasonable interpretation of Paul is that if a couple burns with passion for each other specifically, they should marry: to interpret his words as specific not generic. Interpreting him as saying “if you are horny you should marry” is to construe him as saying that you should act irrationally, because simultaneously being horny and lacking a rational path to marriage is, and has always been, as commonplace as sand on a beach.
@Chris
Yes. I’m no biblical scholar but my impression is that he didn’t teach by laying down new and improved laws, or by elaborating on old laws, but by parables. If you catch the meaning, the work of the parable is done. The laws he did emphasise (Luke 10:27) relate to one’s inner condition and it’s hard to interpret them legalistically or straightforwardly at a behavioural level.
“Gunner Q:
August 11, 2017 at 10:24 am
I don’t know who he’s trying to fool either. God isn’t going to say “I didn’t want you to whore across town like you did but you exploited loopholes in my words so well that I’m not allowed to find fault with you. Well done, faithful servant! Had you been any less clever, I’d have damned you to Hell.”
I almost spit out my water reading that. Good one.
Matthew 13:55-56New King James Version (NKJV)
55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses,[a] Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
If Mary and Joseph never had sex where did these brothers and sisters of Jesus come from?
@ys says: ”
Minesweeper-
And for real, you don’t consider fapping a sin, b/c it’s a bodily function? What caused that bodily function?”
no i dont, neither does the bible, neither does God, but you and your ilk obviously do, so I will let you carry that burden alone. Paul had to constantly wrestle with idiots making up new rules all the time, heck some even insisted that Christians had to get circumcised to be righteous. You done that yet ?
ive met this kind of idiocy before and there is no end to the rules they want to add to the bible. no alcohol, no coffee, no movies, no books, no non Christian music, no exercise (how could this worship God) etc… and do you know all it does ? 1:produces the most fucked up Christians,2:totally distracts them from the real mission. As the rules are so important and more important than people or God.
@Zippy: I would add: we do not know the question or statement, in full, St. Paul was addressing. It seems, to me, quite the jump to respond to the good of not having sex with a woman to talking about marriage and passion; mining the response without recourse to the context is probably not the better path.
Zippy says:
August 11, 2017 at 10:26 am
“Another way to ask the question. If one burns with passion and does not get married, what happens?
The same choice that every Christian ultimately faces: take up your cross and follow Him, or the Lake of Fire.”
Nice to see that we conservative Protestants and Catholics can agree here. I’m a pretty High-Church Protestant, with deep respect for things that the church has agreed on for the last 2,000+ years. These “Me and My Bible Alone” types are coming to conclusions that Catholics, Orthodox and the Reformers would all dismiss in a heartbeat. It reminds me a bit of the Münster Rebellion, which Protestants and Catholics together squashed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion
“The 25-year old John of Leiden was subsequently recognized as Matthys’ religious and political successor, justifying his authority and actions by the receipt of visions from heaven….adopting royal regalia, honors and absolute power in the new “Zion”….he legalized polygamy and himself took sixteen wives. (John is said to have beheaded one woman in the marketplace for refusing to marry him; this act might have been falsely attributed to him after his death.)”
“Minesweeper says:
August 11, 2017 at 10:45 am
“no i dont, neither does the bible, neither does God, but you and your ilk obviously do, so I will let you carry that burden alone. Paul had to constantly wrestle with idiots…”
Yes, idiots like you. That’s why he told believers in the churches to “honor their vessels” and had numerous admonishments in his epistles about sexual purity. If you can’t piece together the Bible’s entire teaching on lust, sex and purity and come to the right conclusions, you’re the one with the issues. It’s obvious you are others are more interested in justifying your habits (“slavery” in Paul’s terms), so you read at a 3rd grade level and say “if he didn’t say this particular word, I can do it!!”
Cool, I’m okay with that. Going to use that a lot from now on, on everyone. No more complaints. Every question or problem can now be utterly silenced by this alone. Just pick up your cross and follow him. Anything else, burn!
FH-
First, you are wrong. There are still legitamate marriage options. But that aside…
“men who burn with passion will sin until they stop burning with passion”
You don’t have to sin. You can burn, and not sin. Difficult, yes, impossible, no.
GunnerQ-
I, too, LOL’d. Thank you.
“I didn’t want you to whore across town like you did but you exploited loopholes in my words so well that I’m not allowed to find fault with you. Well done, faithful servant! Had you been any less clever, I’d have damned you to Hell.”
…
Jeff Strand: If Catholics have to live with the sinful lifestyles of the Borgia popes (though none taught heresy), then Prots have to live with the crazy doctrines of Martin Luther.
Because Protestants believe in sola scriptura, I don’t think many of them feel bound to Luther, or to any particular Protestant teacher, should they decide that a teacher went off-scripture.
Many Protestants call themselves “non-denominational,” which means they’re free of past teachers, free to interpret scripture anew.
I’ve met many Evangelical Christians who deny that they are Protestant. They say that’s a Catholic term and an insult. They say they are simply Christians. If pressed, many will say that they are non-denominational Christians.
OTOH, mainline Protestants seem content to call themselves Protestants. But of those, I think only Lutherans feel tied to Luther’s teachings.
Well it was good enough for Jesus to say and he is the Word made flesh. Perhaps there is something to it.
Minesweeper-
“ive met this kind of idiocy before and there is no end to the rules they want to add to the bible. no alcohol, no coffee, no movies, no books, no non Christian music, no exercise (how could this worship God) etc… and do you know all it does ? 1:produces the most fucked up Christians,2:totally distracts them from the real mission. As the rules are so important and more important than people or God.”
I don’t believe any of that stuff. No matter. Lusting is a sin, and has always been seen as so by the church. For instance, Paul actually told Timothy to drink wine. He would not have done so if it was a sin. He also told the church in Corinth to marry, rather than burn. If he would have told them to wank on, you would have an argument.
Where? List them so that men can find them. I could tell you that a unicorn exists. Just because you can’t find it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Only the self-righteous think that.
Pingback: Friday links and resident hawtness. – Adam Piggott
@MKT, “Yes, idiots like you”
your are obviously a very immature Christian in the Lord who only understands rules given to him by men. If you want to construct a false belief system – well thats your right, but you wont get any rewards for that. It is in fact foolishness and leads to sin, like you calling me an idiot above.
Feministhater,
I’m demanding nothing, as my first comment stated. I’m just letting you know the standard, sir, according to scripture. You will have to determine what you do with it.
When you give a person two options and only two options, which you have done. Then you are demanding they do either one or the other. Word play.
St. Paul says to flee sexual immorality and Timothy says to flee youthful lusts.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A18%2C2+Timothy+2%3A22&version=NASB
And it flat out says in Thessalonians the will of God is to stay away from sexual sin.
http://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/4-3.htm
So it’s either do the will of God or try to rationalize wanking, porn, or whatever sexual sin you want because it doesn’t say it specifically in Scripture.
Well you see, Zippy just changed that. According to Zippy, the reasonable interpretation of this is that he was only speaking to two people who were burning with passion for each other. The rest? It doesn’t matter, they burn with passion until it wanes.
In the end, I’m waiting for you all to come to the same conclusions I’ve already come to. For the vast majority of Christians, you need to be honest and open with them and tell them they will need to learn to live life as an a-sexual person.
I’m bust hell wide open. I will not fall into the marriage trap again. Marriage to a western woman is slavery death and the grave
That should read ‘of two people’ in other words, couples who are burning with passion with each other’ not literally only two people.
“When you give a person two options and only two options, which you have done. Then you are demanding they do either one or the other. Word play.”
Except I’m not the one that set the options. God is. Take it up with him and quit blaming everyone else for telling you the truth of God’s word. If the hardest thing you suffer as a Christian is a lack of wife and the need to deal with your lust, you’re doing pretty good.
Christ went 40 days without eating knowing full well he just had to speak food into existence. The angels on standby to feed him. How’s that for temptation? He did all things well, though, and he is the standard. Don’t be surprised that you fall short. Just admit it and get the mercy he’s holding for you.
FH-
Unicorns. Again, I am married to a woman who loves God and tries to honor Him. I know at least 7 wives of friends who are the same. I know several (4-5) single women who are the same. They are out there. And even if they weren’t, that doesn’t excuse sin.
The self-righteous are not the only ones who think it is possible to not sin. I did not have sex before marriage. Difficult? Very. But I did it. You should save your self-righteous line, though. The feminist Christian women who slut it up before marriage would probably love to use it as their own justification.
feministhater:
If by a-sexual you mean practicing sexual chastity (morally correct behavior with respect to sexuality) whatever one’s state in life, then yes. Everyone is called to chastity, and everyone can and will face times in life when sexual abstinence for extended periods is morally mandatory.
Here is a very short post of mine from several years ago:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/abstinence-makes-the-heart-grow-stronger/
Rather than waiting for others to reach the conclusion that chastity is always the moral standard, you seem to be scrabbling toward that conclusion yourself.
Welcome aboard!
None of this excuses the modern feminist life plan for women, or anything about the sexual cesspit of modernity.
But you’ll eventually find that living your life in such a way that you are always craving the favor of women is not really a good way to live. Not for anyone, especially married men.
Minesweeper says:
@MKT, “Yes, idiots like you”
You’re the one who first used the word “idiot” then “idiocy” when making a terrible false analogy between wanking and true legalism (no alcohol, no movies, etc.) I don’t believe in abstaining from anything on your list, but wanking/porn has a huge amount of Biblical data against it. Again, read the whole of Scripture instead of looking for what it doesn’t specifically say. I’ve quoted some verses here and so have others. Outside of marriage, Paul *always* comes down on the side of turning away from sexual thoughts and actions. He says it over and over again. No one in their right mind comes away thinking “Gee, I guess Paul wants me to fap!!”
You, my friend, are the immature one, who’s simply looking for a way to rationalize his sin.
@Dalrock
I haven’t seen that article, but my wife showed me the Daily Mail article on the same thing. The comments at the Daily Mail are brutal.
The commenters on MSN used to be quite merciless as well, and I suspect that MSN disabled comments for this reason. I expect the other portals to follow suit in time.
Christ also went from 12-33 without a wife which many of us long suffering Christians seem to have to do. If he was also true man that should lead us to believe he had the same sexual desire any other man had…but also had self-control about it. He was the one who told us about the adultery thing so obviously he knew about it but didn’t sin. Again he is the standard but he also knew all our struggles.
squid hunt, ain’t interested in finding myself a wife, buddy, it’s never been my complaint. Nor has lust been my complaint. If you actually read my points, it’s not about me personally, I’m finished, done. Not going to do any of that marriage stuff. It’s about the countless other young men who were in the position I was in years ago, stuck wondering, with no hope, no solutions and no help. I’m just here to get you and all the other pious gents here to lay it out in its full glory. To show these young men that they don’t have a hope of having marriage as it was Biblically designed by God and that they need to turn their life to celibacy.
That is all. Have a nice day.
“Christ also went from 12-33 without a wife which many of us long suffering Christians seem to have to do.”
He really is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. That’s why we know we can take these problems to him and he can comfort us. That’s just amazing.
For the vast majority of Christians, you need to be honest and open with them and tell them they will need to learn to live life as an a-sexual person.
Well the vast majority of Christians do marry, still. It isn’t the case that the vast majority do not marry. Now, they may be in dead bedroom marriages, which is of course a problem, but the solution to the sin of the wife denying sex (a clear sin per St Paul) isn’t for the husband to engage in his own sexual sins. Does this create suffering due to unsatisfied sexual desire? Yes, it does. But we’re told that this life will be filled with suffering as we bear the Cross of Christ, aren’t we? I know you don’t like that answer, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. When faced with a choice between sin and suffering the Christian is always supposed to choose suffering, which means the Cross. Hard teaching to be sure, but kind of Christianity 101, whether it involves sexual sins or other kinds of sins.
Cool story bro, why don’t you give their numbers to the gents on this forum? Not me mind you.
Feministhater,
You really seem to be arguing points I’m not making, but fine. You take care.
And choosing the Cross, while certainly not a pleasant thing, does have a good ending in due time. Don’t believe me…read up on the Resurrection. The main reason it seems like a stumbling block or foolishness is because a lot of people don’t see suffering as something that leads to glory.
@earl, sexual immorality involves others, if jerkin off was bad, it would say so – it would say “thou shall not masturbate neither male nor female”, but it dosnt, if finding others sexually attractive it would say “thou shall not finding others sexually attractive neither male nor female”, but it dosnt, if having a sexual thoughts was sinful it would say it would say “thou shall not be having a sexual thoughts neither male nor female”, etc.
Of course the largest repression of sexual desires is from the Catholic church and we can all see how dreadfully that has worked out in the end.
be as repressed as you want. i dont care. considering men in the NT could take multiple wives without sinning but finding them sexually attractive is sinning 🙂 yeah, as paul was to the circumcisers maybe they should go the whole way and cut the lot off.
Well I know I’m going to bring up the scary Catechism of the Catholic church…but it does address it.
‘By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.” (CCC 2352)
Now tell me what is wrong about this statement in regards to sexual immorality. If your only argument is ‘well scripture doesn’t say this, only the Magisterium and tradition do’…I can’t help you.
Wanking actually is a sin. The penalty is that you bathe with water, and then limit physical contact with other humans for 12 hours. The Jews would say 24 hours, the Israelites would say 36 hours, but Scripture allows a 12 hour interpretation.
Hardly on the same level as adultery, which is a death penalty sin.
If you have a cold or a flu, you have the same penalty as for wanking.
I see some here are still clinging to the word “lust” instead of covet. Coveting is an action, not a state of mind.
No, never said the solution was to commit sexual sin. The solution is what I stated already, he has to become an a-sexual celibate. There’s no one he can get his wife to have sex with him, he already chose marriage because he thought he would get sex but that solution has been denied to him too, so we’re back to were we started.
Namely: For the vast majority of Christians, you need to be honest and open with them and tell them they will need to learn to live life as an a-sexual person.
Besides the fallacy of ‘sexual repression’ with the Catholic church is only repressing sexual sin. Once you’re lawfully married…have it as often as you and your spouse want.
“sexual immorality involves others, if jerkin off was bad, it would say so – it would say “thou shall not masturbate neither male nor female”, but it dosnt, if finding others sexually attractive it would say “thou shall not finding others sexually attractive neither male nor female”, but it dosnt, if having a sexual thoughts was sinful it would say it would say “thou shall not be having a sexual thoughts neither male nor female”, etc.
/snip/
be as repressed as you want. i dont care. considering men in the NT could take multiple wives without sinning but finding them sexually attractive is sinning yeah, as paul was to the circumcisers maybe they should go the whole way and cut the lot off.”
@minesweeper
I’m not sure you could justify a single point you made in the above two paragraphs with scripture. I’d be interested to see what you came up with, though.
If the conclusion from (some flavor of) Biblical literalism is ‘fap away’, then so much the worse for (that form of) Biblical literalism. The Bible doesn’t literally say that Bruce Jenner shouldn’t hack up his genitals and pretend to be a woman. I did a full text search for “Bruce Jenner” and nothing came up.
MKT, “Paul had to constantly wrestle with idiots…”, i wasnt insulting anyone on the forum but you were. obviously reading is hard, but I was referring to what Paul was dealing with almost 2000 years ago with those who were insisting on circumcision for men who became Christians.
but im kinda bored trying to give you milk, if you think jerkin off is sinful, then that speaks volumes, I would guess you have a very sterile life with the Lord as he would be telling you thats nonsense.
Minesweeper:
Boyfriend Jesus tells you that you should do whatever makes you haaaaaaaapppy.
LOL..sterile life with the Lord. That’s why sexual immorality messes up people’s priorities and thinking…if you don’t engage in sexual release then you have a fruitless life. I know because I used to think that way too…later I realized I was railing on it hard because I was trying to defend the sin rather than engage in a relationship with God.
When I read the Bible I always skip the parts that say “Hear, oh Israel …” since I’m an American.
“When I read the Bible I always skip the parts that say “Hear, oh Israel …” since I’m an American.”
Seems like a fairly sound policy.
Dear Fellas:
What they’ll tell you is that they prefer their feelings over a strict interpretation of the text, or the commentary written by experts. This is a very feminized way to look at things, and not one we’re unfamiliar with here on Dalrock, right?
The New Testament sets out a discipline. The fact that no one’s going to live it perfectly doesn’t mean that those who approach the discipline shouldn’t make an attempt to achieve the ideal.
Here’s a simple analogy… You are going to get dirty on a regular basis. Getting dirty is part of living in the world. You can admit that being clean is the ideal, and make an effort to stay clean with good hygiene practices, or you can be like Pigpen in the Peanuts cartoon, and just forego the taking of showers and the washing of hands, since it’s impossible to stay clean. It’s easier not to wash, but there are benefits from washing. Which course of action makes most sense, to you?
Best,
Boxer
“Here’s a simple analogy… You are going to get dirty on a regular basis. Getting dirty is part of living in the world. You can admit that being clean is the ideal, and make an effort to stay clean with good hygiene practices, or you can be like Pigpen in the Peanuts cartoon, and just forego the taking of showers and the washing of hands, since it’s impossible to stay clean.”
This is the entire point of the feet washing at the last supper. It’s impossible to travel in the world and not get your feet dirty. They’re in direct contact with the dirt. We’re going to get the parts of us in contact with the dirt dirty as we travel along. The best part, though? 1. It’s really simple to clean off. 2. That doesn’t mean we have to get another bath. (i.e. get saved again)
Don’t act like you’re getting a choice in the matter.
@squid – you obviously missed it, the point is, its not in there and you lot are saying it is.
which is in error
@zippy – what the f88k are you on about? obviously your mental repression has reached new levels.
@earl – again sex immorality involves others.
@boxer – wtf ? for a guy who bangs broads on a regular basis im suprised you want a dog in this fight. Im still going to take you up on your offer you made me a while ago via IM, you still in NO ? I will be travelling over shortly, hope you are keeping those guns oiled. I have shot before but not for a long time.
“Another is that every morally-acting person will go through long periods of sexual deprivation in their lifetimes for one reason or another: no spouse, sick spouse, etc.”
Add to that ‘disobedient spouse’ and ‘rebellious spouse’. These are the main causes of sexual deprivation among married men.
I’d like to see where it says in Scripture specifically it says it is evil or immoral to have an abortion. Or are we going to figure out how to rationalize abortion because St. Paul or Jesus or a prophet didn’t say it specifically.
I can tell you it’s in the Catechism 🙂 . But that would bring in those nasty tradition and Magisterium aspects again.
Thou shalt not murder covers abortion pretty well IMO
“if you don’t engage in sexual release then you have a fruitless life.”
Most men are not built for a life of celibacy. Most men are built to look forward to at least some period of sexual union with a wife. For most men, celibacy is unnatural. It’s not what God intends for most men, yet that’s where our society is headed.
What are you basing that on other than trying to get around the masturbation issue? St. Paul states specifically sexual sins are sins against one’s own body.
Minesweeper says:
August 11, 2017 at 11:51 am
MKT, “if you think jerkin off is sinful, then that speaks volumes”
What I think is irrelevant. Your argument is with the Scripture. Again, outside of marital sex, Paul and other writers ALWAYS tell Christians to “flee,” “abstain,” “put to death,” etc. all forms of sexual temptation. Unless you’re really dense…or trying to justify a sin you’re enslaved to (I suspect the latter), you can’t read the entire Bible and walk away thinking “I’m doing to turn on the pron tube and wank away…God is fine with that kind of stuff.” Here’s just a sampling of what you’re up against:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/sexual_purity
And masturbation/porn is covered under ‘thou shall not commit adultery’. However both are not specifically cited in Scripture…and that’s what’s tripping up some people.
Dear Minesweeper:
I have an interest in the text of the bible because I like living in an advanced industrial society. If the new atheists took over tomorrow, we’d soon be living in mud huts, in a matriarchal shithole.
Off Topic but most atheists are just feminists at this point, thanks to people like PZ Myers and his horsefaced disciple, Jen McCreight. I have more in common with you guys. I’m guessing this is why Anon and some of the rest of the agnostic types are here too.
Sadly, I’m not in New Orleans. I’ve been in the northwest US/ southwest Canada for the last month. I should get back there in a couple weeks, though. Catch me in email and we’ll go have coffee and talk shit. Dalrock in Meatspace sounds fun.
Best,
Boxer
Which is funny…we are several years into the ‘sexual revolution/liberation’ and it’s leading a lot of people into forced celibacy. How’s that for irony.
How is masturbation covered under adultery. Who is a man committing it with?
@pod, you can see where the madness goes and where it starts.
all of you who think jerkin off is sinful and deserving of eternal punishment I hope when you go to the toilet you handle it with barbecue tongues , i mean there could be touching thats misconstrued.
ys – your married for now, its long road, come back in 15 years and let us all know how that went. place your bets gentlemen 😀
FH-
Sorry bro, wouldn’t give their numbers to men who think lust isn’t a sin. Not to white-knight, but I have to have some care.
Besides, I am not theirs, or your, match-making service. I thought MGTOW was going their own way. I didn’t know it was sit on your backside until someone finds a wife for you. You have to do some of the work you know.
Box bro
“Catch me in email and we’ll go have coffee and talk shit. Dalrock in Meatspace sounds fun.”
will do!
You guys are still banging on about masturbation? Read the Bible! Take a shower, and you can’t take communion or go to church for 12 hours. Leviticus chapter 15. Sheesh. It is simple. Quit complicating it.
Minesweeper,
I disagree. There is a very strong argument against masturbation and porn in the Bible. You won’t see it, though, if you want to play semantics. It directly ties in with the entire purpose of your life as a Christian. If you think God sent Christ to the cross just to save you to do what you like to fulfill your fleshly urges, it becomes a moot point.
Read what I said…. I’ll quote it so you can see that what you just wrote is a lie.
Do you see now? Retract.
As is usually the case whenever this topic comes up, both sides have defensible points. The case against extramarital sexual conduct/fornication/adultery (leaving masturbation out of it) is that I Cor. 7 is clear that, at the very least, marriage is the only permissible venue in which sex can take place.
The opposition points out, rightly, that current Western society has all but eviscerated and left for dead the one institution that can give most men a proper arena for sexual release. Sex, the sex drive, and sexual conduct is a part of the human condition. God put it there, and it’s there for a reason, and that reason was not to torture and injure His creation, but to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply, to bring enjoyment to His creation, and glory to Him. Our society’s sin and decimation of marriage has all but destroyed the ability of most men to live out God’s intent for them and for marriage.
Where does that leave us?
I think it leaves us in a pretty bleak state, really. The reality is that more and more men are not going to marry at all, ever. Most men are not attractive enough to attract and keep the attention of one woman for upwards of 3 decades. Most men just do not have what it takes even to get the attention of a woman, much less sexually attract her, much less lead her through the vicissitudes of life. The sexual attraction that does exist will not be anywhere close to enough to keep them together through the rough times that every marriage encounters (and those rough times are going to get even rougher in the coming decades). The reality is that in the current state, legal marriage has very little to recommend it.
The men who do marry will do so much later well into their 30s, if they marry at all. They will marry women who aren’t sexually attracted to them and who are clearly settling for them, and who will lead very unsatisfying, unfulfilling lives with their “spouses”. Telling these men they will have to wait 10, 20, even 30 years to get married and remain chaste in the meantime is asking a lot. Most men, even devout Christian men, will sin, because the temptation is so great.
And if they ever do get married, they will be marrying women who are sinners themselves through and through. They will have engaged in even more sexual sin than their hapless husbands. They will be completely unable and unwilling to bond to their new husbands, unwilling to have sex with them as wives should, and, really, unable to be wives to those men in any real sense of the word. You can’t even really call what these men and women will be doing “marriage”. It isn’t marriage in any sense of the word (and hasn’t been for decades now).
feministhater @ 11:19 am:
“For the vast majority of Christians, you need to be honest and open with them and tell them they will need to learn to live life as an a-sexual person.”
Yes.
…
Red Pill Latecomer @ 11:09 am:
“I’ve met many Evangelical Christians who deny that they are Protestant.”
Really? Sure, they’re not Protestant but they don’t usually admit it. This is an improvement, like the churches in my area that no longer display the Cross. I don’t care to be associated with Churchians any more than the RCC does.
I’m curious what their theological foundation is if it’s neither Sola Scriptura nor Church Traditions. “We follow Christ but not the teachings of Christ or His apostles” makes no sense unless they’re receiving new, divine revelations that contradict everything that came before.
Sexual sins are all lumped into the sixth commandment when it comes to the Catholic church and tradition. It is considered an offense against chastity.
‘The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.’
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
“And masturbation/porn is covered under ‘thou shall not commit adultery’.”
Wait. Masturbation is adultery?
You do realize you’re playing right into the hands of every stupid Prot minister who claims that when a man whacks it to porn, he’s committed adultery and given his wife grounds for divorce?
Pretty much deti. Earl loves giving women such loaded guns, lol! Oh man, I love it! Moar please!
‘You do realize you’re playing right into the hands of every stupid Prot minister who claims that when a man whacks it to porn, he’s committed adultery and given his wife grounds for divorce?’
Hey if a Prot minister wants to come into the Catholic church so be it. But I didn’t take it from a stupid Prot minister’s reasoning…it’s from the tradition of the Catholic Church that states:
‘The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.’
Besides a Prot minister using Catholic teaching as reasoning…they’d run him out as a heretic.
Wait. Masturbation is adultery?
You do realize you’re playing right into the hands of every stupid Prot minister who claims that when a man whacks it to porn, he’s committed adultery and given his wife grounds for divorce?
Catholics categorize it as a sin against sexual chastity, together with adultery. The ‘adultery’ issue isn’t the huge issue that it is in Protestant Christianity, because adultery isn’t a get out jail free card for marriage — Catholics don’t view it that way. Catholics can get an annulment not based on adultery, but based on whether the couple had the proper consent (informed consent) at the time of the marriage (in terms of understanding what a Catholic marriage is, what is and isn’t permitted, the permissibility of divorce and so on). Adultery isn’t the core foundational issue for marital dissolution among Catholics, from the ecclesial/canonical point of view, that it is for Protestants.
Yet that are earl, that’s exactly where it comes from. Where do you think the Catholic Church got the idea to lump all sexual sins with the commandment not to commit adultery? By using the same Scripture as the Prots use to bash husbands and men daily. Yay!
In addition to the clear teaching in the Bible, it’s interesting to see how many non-Christians (particularly in the manosphere) have stopped wanking (or at least try). From a huge Reddit no fap movement, to many blogs like BoldandDetermind, men have realized that it makes them shame-filled, shy and weak. I posted this article earlier, but it’s worth giving the link again:
http://www.anarchointrovert.com/why-introverts-must-stop-masturbating/
God knows what he’s doing.
And for the record, while I believe fapping is a sin, I don’t believe it (or porn) = physical adultery = easy divorce for the woman. That’s a different issue, but it’s way too nuanced to be discussed with the Minesweeper and AT types…or the SJW Christian Feminist Lites who promote it. They’re two sides of the same coin.
“Sexual sins are all lumped into the sixth commandment when it comes to the Catholic church and tradition. It is considered an offense against chastity.”
Sorry, Earl. This Baptist doesn’t agree with that interpretation. Words have meaning.
FH-
I meant you all, plural. You don’t wan to get married, fine. Don’t. Just quit being a whiny, little pussy who doesn’t like what the commands of scripture say, so he rationalizes them. Seriously. It’s bad for you.
Another tip: Don’t try to sell you life. You insist that everyone wants you to get married, but you really don’t want most men to get married. You want them to be MGTOW like you. Further evidence that you are not content with your life, is that you said cool story bro to me knowing good Christian women. That was a snarky way to dismiss the truth of my statement that I, do, indeed know them.
If you are really content to be unmarried, then why would you care if there 10, or 10,000, virgin Christian women? You wouldn’t. But you are not content. You are whiny, bitter and angry that others have what you don’t.
Where did I say a woman could divorce him when this happens? The church puts adultery and divorce as two offenses against the dignity of marriage. Prot ministers seem to enjoy tearing up marriages rather than trying to keep the dignity of it.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P87.HTM
Femhater:
I don’t think it’s Earl that’s the issue here. I think what’s going on here is a very broad reading of “Thou shalt not commit adultery” as “thou shalt not commit any kind of sexual sins whatsoever” and including masturbation in there. Whether masturbation is not a sin has been the subject of a lot of controversy at least in the Prot churches. (And if masturbation and birth control are sinful, I can tell you right now that even most American Catholics don’t live by it. Every Catholic girl I knew in college was on the pill and sexually active; and even after college and before marriage. As for young Catholic men, well, let’s just say they’re young men and have all the drives attendant to being young men.)
The point that you’ve made, repeatedly and with various levels of eloquence, is that if you’re going to deprive men of proper marriages AND tell them no sexual sin AND tell them no masturbation, most of those men will sin.
Just as with women, when we unleash their sexuality and remove all restraints on it, most of those women will sin. As they currently are.
Where did I say a woman could divorce him when this happens?
Right, but we both know that Protestants (most of them at least) believe divorce is permitted in case of adultery, so for them the “whether it counts as adultery or not” is a huge, monumental issue. It gives them the right to divorce in their tradition. Not in the Catholic/Orthodox view, but that’s why it can be hard to discuss this across traditions I think.
No…the Church also uses tradition and the Magisterium. That’s two things the Prots don’t have and thus don’t have proper context. And it’s not meant to bash men…it’s meant to show the offenses against chastity.
Look I’ll agree with you 100% that Prot ministers like to AMOG and feed deceit into wives to destroy marriages…but I have to take a stand when people try to rationalize sin.
Nova:
“Catholics categorize [masturbation] as a sin against sexual chastity, together with adultery.”
I’m learning that. A couple of things:
It seems to me that if God was clear in the words He used: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. If He had wanted the commandment to be “Thou shalt not commit any kind of sexual sin whatsoever, including masturbation”, He could have said it that way. But He was very clear: The commandment forbids ADULTERY: Married people having sex with people not their spouses.
And, I’m also learning that I Cor. 7 restricts sex to marriage. I’ve tried hard to leave masturbation out of this, but query whether I Cor. 7 also forbids masturbation. You could read it that way, as Paul said each person is to have a spouse to avoid temptation. You could read it differently, as Paul is clearly concerned with people having sex WITH EACH OTHER outside of marriage, not with people masturbating (which isn’t stated).
Let it out, my man! Wow! Now there’s the pious self-righteous man we’ve all waiting to see! Wow, told hold back, scold me some more! You still lied! Little fibber.
I am probably one of the few MGTOW on here, you were talking to me or otherwise you would have stated something completely different and not included me as looking for a wife, which you plainly did.
Yep, they should be MGTOW like me cause there is no way you’re going to help them. Haha!
I only care if there are more Christian women who are virgins because it either means things are improving or getting worse. I can sell whatever I like, the men can take it or leave it.
I said cool story bro because you launched into a diatribe of more anecdotes which do nothing to change the reality of anyone else.
I agree. I have had my eyes opened in this blog to just how bad it has got in many Prot denominations when it comes to marriage, promoting divorce, and deceitful pastors.
@MKT says: “In addition to the clear teaching in the Bible, it’s interesting to see how many non-Christians (particularly in the manosphere) have stopped wanking (or at least try). ”
go on SHOW the verse that mentions masturbating, OR your complete heretic.
“And for the record, while I believe fapping is a sin, I don’t believe it (or porn) = physical adultery = easy divorce for the woman. That’s a different issue, but it’s way too nuanced to be discussed with the Minesweeper and AT types…or the SJW Christian Feminist Lites who promote it. They’re two sides of the same coin.”
You know as much about me as you do about God, which is apparently as much as you could fit on a stamp. What kind of denomination\church would you say you attend ?
“Let it out, my man! Wow! Now there’s the pious self-righteous man we’ve all waiting to see! Wow, told hold back, scold me some more! You still lied! Little fibber.”
FH, you’re so full of it. What a riot.
Oh, you’ve done that alright, you’ve given them all the ammo they require. I’ve stated I think porn and masturbation are sin but by lumping them in with adultery, it’s the kiss of death, 100% divorce rate sought of thing. Really good though, love it, give us some more please.
FH-
You know, as Christians we should be joined to fight for the cause of Christ. I didn’t lie. If my anecdotes are irrelevant, then your whining about you and the men in your position are also anecdotes, and, therefore, irrelevant. But that’s the thing. You think your situation deserves special care and attention that other people don’t need.
What makes you think I am self-righteous?
Thanks squid, I try. He puts the shaming tactic into full gear and I just love it and what more. What can I say.
so to earl, squiddy, MTK,ys – all the fapping is a sin guys – so you guys are telling me you have never ever done that ? even with\by your spouse ? even when you started puberty ?
also would you guys say being uncircumcised is a sin also ?
Yes, ys, all irrelevant. We should just leave things as they stand now. It’s better this way.
@deti, it appears we have some weird puritanical cult has descended on the board en masse. Never seen these guys before are they new ?
Minesweeper
August 11, 2017 at 12:54 pm
“go on SHOW the verse that mentions masturbating, OR your complete heretic (SIC)
You know as much about me as you do about God, which is apparently as much as you could fit on a stamp. What kind of denomination\church would you say you attend ?”
Wow, another prissy-sissy-hissy fit, MS?
I’ve given you tons of verses about sexual thoughts, actions, desires, purity, etc. For the third time, they all tell you to flee/abstain/put to death EVERYTHING outside of marital sex. Anyone honest person (i.e., not trying to justify something they shouldn’t) can see that wanking isn’t part of the Biblical plan. You’re asking for a specific verse is a grammar school move. There’s no verse that says you shouldn’t have bisexual threesomes every Tuesday night, either.
The idea that a lone gunner, I-know-how-to-interpet-the-Bible-better-than-the-church-for-2000 years “Christian” thinks I’m a heretic and wants to know my denomination is as crazy at it is laughable. And your misspelling, grammar and poor reading comp are telling, too…I wouldn’t let my kids get away with that kind of sloppy thinking.
Again, you’re nothing but the flip side of some pink-haired, bi-curious “Christian” feminist blogger.
Bottom line, guys:
It’s bad for men now. It’s really bad. And it’s only going to get worse.
If you’re married now, half of you will be divorced before you die. If you’re not married now, the odds of you marrying decrease with each passing year. The odds of you actually finding someone suitable to be married to are declining even faster. The odds of you yourself not being “suitable” for marriage are also quite low – mostly because, well, to be honest, you’re not sexually attractive enough. And sexual attraction is all that matters now when women select for marriage, and most of what keeps a woman with a man now.
Most of you are not going to get married. Most of you are going to commit sexual sins, because you won’t be able to marry.
“so to earl, squiddy, MTK,ys – all the fapping is a sin guys – so you guys are telling me you have never ever done that ? even with\by your spouse ? even when you started puberty ?”
I never said that. I’ve had my share of sins. Another bad assumption.
@SJB
I am obviously one flesh. But my question is relevant because you contested my citation of Genesis:
Since a couple can produce multiple children, are those multiple children one flesh or multiple fleshes?
Hey man, I tried this approach before, you can’t whine, you must just keep silent. Men are not allowed to speak out about this problem, that’s being a whiny little bitch. Keep quiet.
@MKT “says: August 11, 2017 at 1:07 pm Minesweeper August 11, 2017 at 12:54 pm
“go on SHOW the verse that mentions masturbating, OR your complete heretic (SIC)
You know as much about me as you do about God, which is apparently as much as you could fit on a stamp. What kind of denomination\church would you say you attend ?”
Wow, another prissy-sissy-hissy fit, MS?”
heretic. oh boo hoo, you cant actually find ANYTHING, well good to know , so what God or religious system do you follow again ? obviously its not biblically based or you would be able to back up your belief with verses.
see this is what happens when that weird cult in the woods where you marry your cousin finally gets satellite broadband in the compound.
Femhater:
Yeah I know. And you’ve got great points.
I’m just concerned about what your realization of these points is doing to YOU. It’s hurting you, very, very badly. It’s embittering you. Do you have a good reason to be bitter and hurt? Damn right you do. But keeping it and holding onto it is injuring you. At some point we all have to accept our lots and do the best we can, knowing that we’ll stumble and sin along the way, and give up caring about what other people say about the decisions we have had to make, and find some happiness or at least contentment among all the shit our parents and grandparents saw fit to dump us into.
Think about it.
Minesweeper says:
August 11, 2017 at 1:17 pm
“heretic. oh boo hoo, you cant actually find ANYTHING, well good to know , so what God or religious system do you follow again ? obviously its not biblically based or you would be able to back up your belief with verses.
see this is what happens when that weird cult in the woods where you marry your cousin finally gets satellite broadband in the compound.”
Projection much, boy? You sound all of about 13. I doubt you’re old enough to shoot guns with Boxer, and I sure hope he fist bumps you instead of shaking hands…
And again, you and AT are the ones who sound like an incestuous backwoods cult with your own, self-suited interpretations.
I hope you grow up and stop jerking off. Seriously.
“so you guys are telling me you have never ever done that ?”
Minesweeper,
1. Asked and answered.
2. Not relevant to the discussion of what is sin unless you are stating you’ve never sinned other than fapping, which you argue is not sin.
@ Derek Ramsey
What do you mean by “bring a married couple together”? If they’re a married couple at the point in time they come together for sex, the existence of their marriage clearly preceded the sexual act!
In fact, every marriage ceremony testifies that the marriage exists outside the sex act. When the minister proclaims the couple husband and wife, they are actually husband and wife at that moment. The status change does not wait until that night, or for the legal documents to be signed.
But the sex act does confirm the status, much like a handshake confirms an agreement.
@MKT, think im prob alot older than you are, in physical age and maturity with the Lord.
Are you spiritually gifted at all or are all the spiritual gifts dead to you ?
Also when did you arrive at Dalrocks ?
deti to feministhater
I’m just concerned about what your realization of these points is doing to YOU.
He looks to be very deeply stuck in the anger phase of unplugging. Gunner_Q used to be that way but is working his way out of it. The anger phase inevitable for almost every man, but being stuck it it is not a good situation. The bitterness that sets in can take a toll on mental and even physical health. More than one man who lurks or comments in the androsphere can verify that from his own personal experience.
The way out in practical terms requires working on the self both mentally and physically, and part of that is to stop caring what women think, say or do as a general rule. It also requires a man to give up being butthurt, which can be quite difficult when the resentment stems from real, verifible, wrongdoing. But it still has to be given up.
Femisthater, you’re not harming anyone but yourself with this mindset. Stop hurting yourself.
By the way, what’s the consensus? Has Artisanal Toad proven his point, or not? Do we need a little poll-box script to determine that?
deti, it’s not the problem of lust for me, it’s actually the acute awareness that there are those who truly do not care to help, nor solve the problem of male sexual frustration at all. They don’t care that this will lead men to sin, they don’t care that these men will be tempted and have no moral means to achieve release. They only care that these men are fully aware that not only are the laws of marriage stacked against them, not only are they only going to get married much later in life, not only is their wife going to be cold and distant, but that if they look at another woman, or fap or look at porn, they are guilty of adultery. Not only that they are guilty of the sin of adultery in their hearts but the wife now has full rights to divorce him for sexual immorality and is given cover by the church and those who would bash him over the head.
It’s not worth getting angry over though, the consequences of their foolishness will be there for all to see.
Yeah I know ANR. I’ll let you more mild mannered people sort it out.
AT continues the clown show:
AT reads the first sentence and becomes too triggered to continue reading the post that contained the argument he demanded. AT was invited to fight out his position, but he has chosen to retreat into a delusion where the arguments laid out against him do not exist.
Such a Brave Bible Warrior, fleeing from a hamster.
@ Boxer:
The contrast between your compliments to AT and what he did in this thread would be baffling if you hadn’t already revealed your character as a lying Gamma. But it does make sense that a heretic sex fanatic and an ex-Mormon have common cause against Christ and Truth.
Novaseeker:
Right, there is one and only one thing that ends a valid, sacramental marriage: death. (That’s why Henry VIII kept killing his wives).
Adultery is a more serious sin than masturbation, but they are both mortally sinful offenses against chastity. So yeah, Catholics don’t treat adultery as some sort of get-out-of-marriage card, and therefore naturally have a different attitude about it. It isn’t that other things can end a valid marriage: it is that nothing short of death actually does end a valid marriage. So any subsequent “marriage” while one’s valid spouse lives is itself adultery.
Modern people are slaves to their appetites (a.k.a. they don’t have “hang ups”), so this is incomprehensible to most of them.
@MKT says:
August 11, 2017 at 1:23 pm
Minesweeper says:
August 11, 2017 at 1:17 pm
“heretic. oh boo hoo, you cant actually find ANYTHING, well good to know , so what God or religious system do you follow again ? obviously its not biblically based or you would be able to back up your belief with verses.
see this is what happens when that weird cult in the woods where you marry your cousin finally gets satellite broadband in the compound.”
Projection much, boy? You sound all of about 13. I doubt you’re old enough to shoot guns with Boxer, and I sure hope he fist bumps you instead of shaking hands…
And again, you and AT are the ones who sound like an incestuous backwoods cult with your own, self-suited interpretations.
I hope you grow up and stop jerking off. Seriously”
tell your wife who is also your cousin I said “Hi”.
” The odds of you yourself not being “suitable” for marriage are also quite low – mostly because, well, to be honest, you’re not sexually attractive enough. And sexual attraction is all that matters now when women select for marriage, and most of what keeps a woman with a man now.”
As a mid-30’s introvert currently working a dead end job, this observation hits like a ton of bricks. I’d like to have a wife and kids, but I’m becoming aware this may never happen for me.
“so to earl, squiddy, MTK,ys – all the fapping is a sin guys – so you guys are telling me you have never ever done that ? even with\by your spouse ? even when you started puberty ?”
I never said that. This isn’t to promote self-righteousness…I can tell you it does damage chastity. I had to go to confession quite often because I was depressed and gave in…so I get it’s not easy. But I can’t rationalize the sin either because of how marriage is or I have these urges. God’s grace is big when it comes to self control.
@thedeti
Masturbation adulterates the man. That is an adultery, though not in the sense that most people use the word for.
The heresy is not in calling masturbation adultery; it is taking Jesus’ prohibition of divorce in virtually all cases and making excuses for man to split apart what God had joined together. Our hearts are hard.
@Zippy says: August 11, 2017 at 11:57 am
“Minesweeper:
Boyfriend Jesus tells you that you should do whatever makes you haaaaaaaapppy.”
thats rich coming from a man who probably still prays to his earthly mother ? does she make you happy? i’d rather take jesus is my boyfriend than mary is my conduit to God, not that either apply to me.
”Oh, you’ve done that alright, you’ve given them all the ammo they require.’
Ok if a Prot minister cites Catholic Magisterium teaching as his reasoning…he’ll be run out as a heretic before a divorce happens. This isn’t about giving feminist Prot ministers ammo…it’s about pointing out these sins are against chastity.
Novaseeker
Catholics can get an annulment not based on adultery, but based on whether the couple had the proper consent (informed consent) at the time of the marriage (in terms of understanding what a Catholic marriage is, what is and isn’t permitted, the permissibility of divorce and so on).
Just for clarification, you are writing in the ideal terms, that is what ought to be the case, correct? Because in the real world we both know some number of Roman Catholic men whose wives frivorced them in the court system, then took that filing to a bishop – maybe shopped around a bit – and bought an annulment. “Proper consent” being a fig leaf to cover up the actual facts in such cases: frivorce by an unhaaaapy woman.
The “ought’ should not be confused with the “is” in men’s minds, because real men suffer real consequences when they get those two things mixed up.
But I can understand Prots apprehension to this because their corrupt ministers try to find any excuse to give the wife justification for a divorce. Justification that doesn’t come from God by the way. For Catholics a lawful marriage only ends with death…not sexual sin.
“For Catholics a lawful marriage only ends with death…not sexual sin.”
What about the Pauline exception at I Cor. 7:15:
“But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.”
What does “not under bondage” mean, if not “free to remarry” meaning the marriage to the unbelieving spouse is ended?
‘Because in the real world we both know some number of Roman Catholic men whose wives frivorced them in the court system, then took that filing to a bishop – maybe shopped around a bit – and bought an annulment.’
While I don’t doubt that can happen…Ive also talked to a person in the diocese whose specialty is to investigate the lawful validity of the marriage…and he says it’s a long process. His goal is to keep the marriage together rather than find8ng loopholes. I’ve also known a co-worker who got a civil divorce but was denied an annulment.
Can we all agree that sin just means missing the mark of approaching God?
If that is the case, then jerking off or whoring doesn’t get you closer to God.
Consult your own denomination on how serious the sin is, but yes – these things are still sins. I personally don’t beat myself up about it and just ask forgiveness. I mean, I still get pissed off at people, which is sinful too.
@deti
Well I learned something new about Canon law…it has to be a specific set of circumstances for Pauline privilege. Both are unbaptized before getting married…one gets baptized during marriage…and the unbaptized one leaves.
Better explaining here:
http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/04/04/what-is-the-pauline-privilege/
@SirHamster: Your question is not relevant as it does not change the 1 gamete + 1 gamete = 1 conception equation. In fact, pursuing your question will lead you to Heraclitus’ paradox (the doctrine of flux).
Earl:
Yeah, the Pauline privilege is much, much more liberally applied in Prot denominations – as you might expect.
Assume a valid marriage between two baptized Christians.
If one spouse renounces his faith and leaves – Pauline privilege applies.
If one spouse has an affair and won’t return to the marriage, the cheating spouse is deemed an “unbeliever”, and Pauline privilege applies.
If one spouse is engaged in some kind of sin/entrapped in substance abuse, the addicted/sinning spouse is an “unbeliever”, and Pauline privilege applies.
If at any point one spouse is deemed to be “not Christian enough”, the “not Christian enough” spouse is an “unbeliever”, and Pauline privilege applies.
@SJB
Your interpretation of Biblical “one flesh” referring to children does not make sense.
The promise to Abraham wasn’t that he would get One Flesh. It is that he would have many offspring who would become many nations.
It’s an odd error on your part, and I’m curious what is driving it. The inappropriate scientific references are a clue.
Earl
Ive also talked to a person in the diocese whose specialty is to investigate the lawful validity of the marriage…and he says it’s a long process.
In that one subdivision of the RC hierarchy. Not all parts of your church are like that. As men can testify, from first person or second person experience.
Elusive Wapiti isn’t around much anymore, but he could provide you with a first-person account, including “bishop shopping” by his “till death do us part”. There are men I have worked with or known via my social circle with similar accounts, in every case they were stunned with a “deer in the headlights” look for a time. They didn’t see it coming, and in one case a man refused to belive it was possible because he was wrapped up in “ought” rather than seeing “is”.
It is hardly a secret that more annullments are granted by US bishops than the rest of the RCC combined. That fact is true, even though it ought not to be. Roman Catholic men who decide that their wife cannot ever divorce and annulment them should be aware of this fact, it is simply a risk factor to take into account. “That can’t happen to ME” is not risk management, nor leadership, it is dangerous self delusion. Hence my clarifying remark riffing off of Novaseeker.
Interesting Catholic Catechism 2355: “Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.140 Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.”
The imputability of the offense should easily be attenuated for men in this age.
thedeti:
The Pauline privilege only applies when the divorcing spouse has never been baptized. In such a case the Church (but not the state, and not the individuals themselves) has the power to dissolve the marriage and free the baptized spouse because the marriage is merely “natural”, which is to say, is not a sacrament. Marriages between pagans are merely natural; marriages between baptized Christians are sacramental and therefore indissoluble.
I cite sources here:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/the-curious-case-of-matthew-199/
Anonymous Reader is correct that Catholic doctrine and boots on the ground practice are radically different. But the doctrine remains, accusing all of those who abuse it.
“But the doctrine remains, accusing all of those who abuse it.”
Including your Church’s ordained clergy, all the way up to the cardinate – the very men charged with defending and keeping that doctrine.
@SirHamster: having “one flesh” refer to coitus does not make sense as male and female are not obviated during the act (PIV does not make one anymore than another’s finger in your ear makes you one with the other). Likewise, “one flesh” referring to some sort of non-sexual coupling of male and female does not make sense: flesh is real, can be seen, touched, etc. A marriage brings no new flesh in and of itself–the couple must couple. The only thing that makes sense is a child. Thus we read stories of the sadness of barren couples, the joys of fruitful couples, and the Lord God making unexpectedly fertile.
Your reference to Abram: he did leave his mother and father (eventually) and did hold fast to his wife. They, however, were not fertile until made such by the Lord God. Abram’s story is more than interesting: he was a very clever man but the Lord was more clever.
“marriages between baptized Christians are sacramental and therefore indissoluble.”
Which seems to support a “once saved, always saved” doctrine. If two baptized Christians are married, and one renounces his/her faith, then according to you and your sources, the baptized Christian is still sacramentally married. The renouncer cannot validly renounce his faith and therefore become an “unbeliever”. So if the renouncer expressly renounces faith and leaves the marriage, the remaining believer is forever tethered to the unbelieving spouse.
thedeti:
There is a long tradition in observing that clerics suffer from all the foibles of the communities from which they are drawn.
“I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish.” St. John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12
Toad hasn’t answered Dalrock adequately. Toad has no need to address the Hamster, who has shown himself guilty in this thread and the previous vilefacelessminion thread of the debating tactics that he accuses Toad of. Trying to defeat Toad with rhetoric isn’t going to work; stop trying.
@Hamster, leave off the “one flesh” thing. The conception of children is indeed a valid understanding of “one flesh”, but you are correct that there is more to it, and conception of children isn’t the entirety of the matter.
Masturbation. Leviticus 15 people. Read it carefully. The Bible does speak about masturbation. It isn’t adultery. Choose this day, between the Word, and between your Church magisterium.
I see, you cannot reconcile Biblical “one flesh” with there being two separate people. Yet the marriage bond is more than just two people hanging out and putting tab into slot.
We are agreed that “one flesh” involves flesh.
This is our disagreement. The union of man and woman is a different thing than man and woman taken individually. While I am not married, I consider my parents one unit, and my greatest childhood grief was when the word divorce was flung between the two in heated argument.
There is a mystery to marriage that you gloss over when you compare sex to a wet willy.
Boxer,
AT was calling someone else an idiot (which is what I quoted). I should have said “throw” there BTW.
He is not the brightest bulb in the shed from what I have read, in spite of his many words. Perhaps that is just me, but I don’t think so. However, my point was that him throwing out “idiot” is not very bright on his part. I was not addressing his latest arguments as I tend to not bother reading them at all since I have yet to see value in the many I have read.
Hope that makes more sense.
thedeti:
It isn’t “once saved always saved”. It is “once baptized always baptized”. Baptized Christians can certainly go to Hell.
Marriage between baptized Christians cannot be undone, any more than baptism can be undone. It does not follow that someone who is baptized cannot go to Hell.
If sex prior to marriage is perfectly fine, why would the unmarried Paul speaks of need to marry to have a proper outlet for their passion?
Or is that just meaning something more hidden? How much sex means they don’t have self-control?
FH,
Yeah, the situation sucks since humans have messed up the modern marriage situation so much, but that doesn’t make the goal any worse.
Would you argue against attending a godly church service as a Biblical good just because someone lives in a society that doesn’t allow that? They may be unable to fulfill it, but it would still be the proper goal. So any kind of sexual activity should be in marriage, though it may not in today’s environment because the well is so poisoned.
Putting off sexual moral sexual activity until a man is really old is ludicrous, but it is the situation we are in.
@SirHamster: thank you for being clear. To me the mystery of conception is grand: the “directed randomness” involved in the generation of the gametes is incredible and I’m fill with awe when pondering it.
Coitus is just coitus; the sole purpose is to get gametes together. The hormonal aftermath, what the Catholics call the unitive function, is also incredibly complex and, may I say, well designed toward the intent of keeping male and female willing to facilitate the survival and growth of the new human.
I assure you of my reverence to the Author of that system and regard for those who operating that system in Love.
False summary. I am not accusing Toad of debating tactics. I am calling him a liar and charlatan who mishandles Scripture to justify his own lusts and to lead others to follow his own path of damnation. I am attacking his values and his credibility, not his tactics.
You are mistaken to think I care if AT addresses me. I do not respect his intellect or his opinion.
But as Jesus loves his soul, so must I hope his humiliation leads to his repentance.
The mix of rhetoric is chosen because reason was tried and failed. Any reason used with respect to AT is only for the benefit of observers. That was the only reasonable thing left to do.
I have not read much of Luther’s writings, but I was under the impression he advocated vigorous sex INSIDE marriage, not outside it. Does anyone have pointers to something that says OUTSIDE marriage is fine for that, per Luther?
Ys,
I thought my ex-wife was the same. I knew she had some very rough edges, but I thought she really put God first place in her life. It turned out she puts herself first place in her life. (She can be quite the hypocrite about it too, such as telling others “God hates divorce” with a straight face while not considering her own actions.)
The mines are not always clear and some don’t trigger for many years.
I agree the modern situation is very broken, but I also agree that our society’s brokenness doesn’t negate the ideal target.
“Well the vast majority of Christians do marry, still. It isn’t the case that the vast majority do not marry. Now, they may be in dead bedroom marriages, which is of course a problem,”
Given a choice between no marriage and a dead bedroom marriage, the rational man must choose no marriage. The dead bedroom marriage is no marriage at all. No sex, no marriage.
@SJB
Appreciate the engagement and clarification.
Earl,
It is not necessarily AMOGing. It is applying their basis, the Scriptures. You do the same with your traditions, the basis used is just different. I am not sure saying “masturbation is adultery” is even consistent with RCC doctrine. It is a sin and gets lumped into the same large bin, but it is not the same sin. Though my knowledge of RCC doctrine is very rusty, at best.
The same could be said of many in the RCC. How many legislators voted in favor of abortion, for example, but could still take communion? The RCC has its own huge flaws, even now.
AR,
That is the part I am really working on now. I am trying to focus on the good, not just who did wrong in the past (or who continues to do wrong now). That is harder than it seems, but letting anger, even if it has a righteous component, eat you up is not helpful, let alone healthy.
Hopefully my grounding in the Word is sufficient to ultimately keep me focused well, but only time will tell that.
I haven’t seen too much agreement with him here, so I would say “no” in answer to your question.
BillyS-
We would be essentially in agreement. Difficulty of present cirucmstances is no justification for sin.
Zippy,
I was baptized in the RCC as an infant. I married in a Protestant church. No children. Almost 30 years of marriage. A wife who filed for divorce and refuses any attempt at restoration.
Would I be considered married in the RCC now? Would I even need to seek an annulment if I wanted that? (This is more for my curiosity than reality since I could not return to the RCC and be consistent with what I see in the Scriptures.
Deti,
I am beginning to see the whole marriage issue in the same light as the Sabbath: Marriage was made for man, not man for marriage. Taking Jesus specific answer about a man divorcing his wife “for any reason” and applying it in a blanket way to all possible permutations begins to look like prohibiting the healed man from carrying his bed because it was doing “work on the Sabbath”.
I wish the Scriptures went into a whole lot more details, but we would likely confuse them even if they did.
For diet, thesupermandiet.com should get you started, it is a testimony from someone who’s well versed into that.
FH-
” it’s actually the acute awareness that there are those who truly do not care to help, nor solve the problem of male sexual frustration at all. They don’t care that this will lead men to sin, they don’t care that these men will be tempted and have no moral means to achieve release.”
Despite our sword fencing, nothing could be more untrue. I do care, and that’s why I am concerned that people not get led to the path to sin. Without trolling or insulting in any way, question: What would someone helping, or caring to solve the problem, look like to you?
I would note a general agreement with FH on being frustrated when I hear preachers rant against sins of men, including porn, and say nothing (or almost nothing) about the sins of women. They are not dealing with the proper problem at all. Their ranting is completely unproductive and will drive many away from salvation.
Fix sexless marriages, women gaining 100 pounds soon after marriage, women putting marriageo off to be sexually loose in their younger years, and other such things and you then could rant about the sins of men.
The men who may fall under these rants don’t listen to them, so they are just false accusations as they are put forth in almost all cases.
@Dalrock.
You deflected nicely, so let’s see if we can get back to the point. Paul plainly said that sin is a violation of the Law. Where there is no Law, there is no violation, where there is no violation there is no sin imputed. Your comments on rebellion are well stated, but the point remains that sin (for everyone) is a violation of God’s Law. For Christians, there are also violations of the conscience (c.f. Romans 14:23 and James 4:17), which is sinful for the individual, but not everyone. That which is not of faith is sin, but the problem there is the individual’s problem because of their lack of faith. Romans 14 is pretty clear on it.
And, as usual, not one of the interlocutors has attempted any sort of exegetical analysis of the point that I made, choosing to focus instead on ad hominem attacks. Which is to be expected, given the quality of Christians these days. I effectively told every man here that if he didn’t get his woman’s virginity, she (in almost all cases) isn’t his wife. Which means they are living in adultery. I explained it and linked to the post where it’s explained in detail.
That should have provoked a firestorm, but it got left alone. The elephant in the room that nobody wants to notice. I have specifically called out a few to back their assertions and cite their proof, chapter and verse. The response? *Crickets*
Interestingly, in reading over the comments, it appears that somehow I have been painted as opposing the idea that marriage is the place to have sex. That isn’t true. I very much believe that marriage is the place where sex belongs, by definition. But I’ve been pointing out that y’all have no idea what God actually said about the details and evidently nobody likes that.
* All women are virgins when they first marry and the exceptions merely prove the rule.
* It is not a sin to marry, not something that can be “laid on the alter” and left behind once it’s done.
* Every man after the one who got her virginity is not a case of “premarital sex” but rather adultery. Because she is a married woman.
* Throwing a party with a white dress, exchanging vows before witnesses and eating cake does not make a married woman somehow married to a new man, it institutionalizes her adultery.
Given that according to the CDC only about 5% of women are virgins when they have their official wedding and according to the Southern Baptists only about 20% of women in “highly religious” groups are virgins when they have their official wedding, it’s safe to say that the church is filled with adultery.
And believe it or not, the Bible has solutions to deal with this problem. Several of them. I’ve written about it at length, but the fact remains that the church is responsible for teaching the lies that caused this problem. The tragedy? No-one wants to admit their guilt and do what has to be done.
Now, having said that, I will address your point about 1st Corinthians 7 in a moment, but first, we need to deal with this:
“This wasn’t saying that all we have to do is follow the Law.”
I have never said that, what I have said is that sexual immorality is specifically prohibited in the Law and also includes the New Testament instruction forbidding Christian men from having sex with prostitutes.
“Yet you want to do the same, disregarding NT instruction and only following the Law.”
This is a lie. I do not disregard any New Testament instruction, not do I recommend doing so, nor have I ever taught that. What I have said is that the instruction in the New Testament that talks about sin, specifically sexual immorality, is defined by the Law. Sexual immorality consists of those things of a sexual nature that are prohibited in the Law, because sexual immorality (that which is immoral, a sin for everyone) is a sin.
Masturbation is not forbidden and I cannot claim it is a sin for you or anyone else. I might believe it is a sin for me, but even if I do, I cannot claim it’s a sin for anyone else. I could say it’s a bad idea and point to biochemical changes in the brain… but I can’t claim it’s a sin for everyone because God did not do so. In addition to that, Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 specifically states that the Law is sealed. Nobody gets to add to it or subtract from it. It’s perfect and complete. So, if anyone claims that something is a sin for everyone when God didn’t say it was a sin, they are in violation of God’s Law, which is a sin.
Wow….What a thread. Good work Dalrock.
Couple of personal beliefs I will throw out as my current understanding.
1. Marriage is “from the beginning” and as such the civil authority is irrelevant.
To “take as a wife”, or “to be Married” is the covenant between the husband, wife and God.
If you have sex with a woman who isn’t the wife of another man, the covenant is EXPECTED by God. You may have as many wives as you wish, but the covenant applies to them all. (polygany was allowed by God and God does not change) (Prov 5:15 has plural streams and the word “own” is used to translate different words in Corinthians)
The covenant can be given first, then consummated by sex…..or sex can create the expectation of the covenant by God. Accepting the expected covenant would cover what would otherwise be fornication.
The father who did not give his consent can overrule his daughters covenant on the day he hears of it. It would also be a massive disrespect to the father AND the daughter to take his daughter without his permission.
Adultery is having sex with another mans wife.
Fornication is having sex without the covenant expected by God.
Sex outside of a bond is not God’s plan.
Both Jesus and Paul assert that Marriage will bring you troubles and you’d be better off if you could avoid it, but that some who burn with passion should enter it.
The two shall become one flesh is referring to the sharing of DNA, diseases, etc that go along with intercourse. Very similar so sharing blood between two people. Which is why this applies to prostitutes. (interesting reading about the deflowering male imprinting his DNA into the female. Offspring from subsequent fathers showing traits from the “first” father.”
As to the OP………..of course marriage isnt the CAUSE of sexual immorality. our burning passions Marriage is the prescription to avoid it.
They don’t oppose each other. Hence the problem with Luther.
@earl wasn’t it you who equated masturbation with adultery? That contradicts Leviticus 15, which equates it with the common cold.
Besides you just proved in Lev 15…that masturbation is a sin. If you want to argue semantics that it isn’t exactly like your definition of adultery so be it…but I gave the reason before why the church included it under the sixth commandment. The bigger issue before was people trying to say it isn’t sinful.
‘Then on the eighth day he shall take for himself two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and come before the Lord to the doorway of the tent of meeting and give them to the priest; and the priest shall offer them, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf before the Lord because of his discharge.’ Lev 15:14-15
BillyS:
I’ll tell you my understanding of things, though I would emphasize that I’m just a layman.
No. But see my answer to your annulment question below.
Yours would be what is called a “defect of form” case. Baptized Catholics are required to follow the form of marriage prescribed in Canon Law – or be explicitly dispensed from it by the local bishop – in order for their marriages to be valid.
(It doesn’t matter whether you agreed to it or not; it just matters that you were baptized Catholic, and not for example in a Protestant denomination. Protestant baptism is valid, assuming it is done with water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Anyone can baptize, actually, even a non-Christian).
In fact all baptized Christians are required to follow Canon Law but, interestingly, Canon Law specifically permits baptized Protestants to marry validly under the rules/form of their own denomination. In other words, Protestants are automatically dispensed from the requirement to follow Canonical form. Valid marriage does assume that the denomination actually means by “marriage” what the Church means by it, which includes openness to children, indissolubility and sexual fidelity. Absent any of the essentials of marriage in the consent of the parties, the marriage is not valid. Anyone can stand up and say that they agree to be “married”, but there are obviously limits — a guy can’t marry a guy, etc. The thing you have to be actually agreeing to is marriage, not just any old thing that you happen to call “marriage”. I wrote about this here:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/marriage-ideas-have-marriage-consequences/
So Protestants do (at least potentially) have two valid sacraments: baptism and matrimony. But the situation is fraught.
Yes. No Christian has the personal authority to juridically declare his own prima facie marriage null. Only the Church has this authority to declare nullity, and no baptized Christian can validly marry when there are prima facie impediments to marriage (e.g. the existence of a previous marriage, the validity of which must be judged by a duly instituted Church tribunal).
So in my understanding of things it is not possible for you to marry at all without first getting an annulment of your “marriage’; but the granting of that annulment is a virtual certainty, because defect of form cases are really a straightforward matter of confirming your baptism in a Catholic church and the fact that your ‘marriage’ did not follow canonical form and was not explicitly dispensed from doing so — just a matter of paperwork, really.
Lol this is too funny. The self righteous pharisee moralizers are not able to refute my comments on Matthew 5, so now they are trying to condemn masturbation as a mortal sin
When I get time I’ll be back in here to refute your nonsense
‘ wasn’t it you who equated masturbation with adultery?’
No it is the Catholic church that brings this up…It says ‘the tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.”
…and they don’t make them equal offenses either.
The masturbation part is listed under the offenses against chastity…whereas adultery is listed under the offenses against marriage. Look through the list yourself.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Maybe someone can help me find a verse….I believe its Peter or Paul and he briefly mentions masturbation but I don’t know the terms used. Basically it was this small snippet where he says “I won’t say you can or cant, but that you should keep your mind free of immoral thoughts” (paraphrased) I’ve been searching for it and havent yet……maybe it rings a bell with someone else.
Well that’s a different issue…the errors of feminism if you will worming into the churches. Basically making everything women do as saintly and everything men do as evil. Turning gender into the basis for good and evil is something I’d call a heresy. Sin is sin no matter which gender is committing it.
Thanks for the answer Zippy. I was both baptized in the RCC as an infant and later as a believer (outside the RCC).
I suspect RCC doctrine would proclaim I should stay single the rest of my life. I may very well do that, but I do not see it as a Biblical commandment, even if I once might have.
BillyS:
Actually no. With a manifest defect of form case in your ‘marriage’ you could easily obtain an annulment and then be free to marry. I am basically certain that your marriage was not valid.
But because you were baptized Catholic (“second baptisms” have no effect) you’d have to follow canonical form or get a dispensation from the bishop. (My guess is that most bishops would give you one, if only for the novelty and the ecumenical respect that it shows).
I agree it’s true…I don’t shy away from the fact there are certainly some corrupt bishops in the US…and abuse their authority for profit. They will have a lot to answer for when they are judged because they are also promoting offenses against marriage. I’m pointing out it’s not as easy as a preacher telling a wife to go to the court house and make it so…like I suspect many on here have encountered.
@ deti
Yeah that’s the danger when a preacher starts taking Scripture into his own hands. Where Paul had a narrow definition of what it meant (I suspect because he was preaching to Gentile pagans where many were unbaptized who were married and some were becoming baptized)…Prots seem to think they can get around the whole baptism thing.
I’ll put it this way…Catholic Church Canon law formed way back when based off Scripture and tradition certainly does protect us a lot from this type of crazy modern thought.
Damn Crackers says:
August 11, 2017 at 8:07 am
Thanks for your response but I disagree.
The 3 examples shown in scripture show that it depends on the expectation of the groom.
Example 1] Deut.22:13-21 The groom had been sold a virgin, but on the wedding night he discovered he had been sold a lemon [deception]. The blood stained sheet was the fathers receipt, and a better witness than a room full of friends and family. He must raise his concerns at the time, not years later.
Example 2] Joseph was betrothed to marry Mary on the basis of her being a virgin. When Joe found out she was pregnant, he was getting out at that point in time because he was a righteous man. Fortunately an angel intervened.
Example 3] New Testament 2Cor.11:2 … for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
This is a reflection of our covenant with Christ, if His expectations are not met there will be no marriage for a betrothed bride if she is unfaithful during the betrothal. Think about that… if a girl cannot contain herself during her betrothal, what kind of wife will she be?
I admit this is a grey area for most folks. But I am convinced they are correct. If you’re interested please click my name.
Hose_B @ 5:04 pm:
“Maybe someone can help me find a verse…Basically it was this small snippet where he says “I won’t say you can or cant, but that you should keep your mind free of immoral thoughts”
Perhaps 1 Cor. 6:12-13?
“All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body.”
Earl
I’m pointing out it’s not as easy as a preacher telling a wife to go to the court house and make it so…
You still don’t quite get it, that’s the reverse of the standard sequence. You assume a rebellious wife is somehow obeying a preacher? What actually happens much more often is unhaaaapy wife gets divorce then demands that the church accept her decision. Which is a reasonable demand, since pastors / preachers / priests will generally do so. That’s why for Roman Catholic men the danger must be spotted long before she goes bishop shopping, because by then it’s too late.
Earl, women have agency. They are capable of doing things all by themselves, they don’t need some man telling them to behave badly. You should know this by now, but you keep writing text that clearly shows otherwise. In Bible terms, who told Eve what to do? Who did she obey?
Good Evening Dalrock,
Thank you for this excellent and Biblically backed and packed commentary. There are simply no arguments to counter your stance nor will there ever will be. Because you speak pure truth here. Truth is spiritual and yes eternal. Lies are carnal and thankfully passing.
God bless.
1st Corinthians 7:1-2 (NASB) “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of (pornea), each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”
Let’s look at what the text actually says. A straight translation from the Greek goes something like this:
“Because of sexual immorality and idolatry, each is to have his own wife and each is to have her own husband.”
If a man has “his own” wife he is a husband, so we should say “each husband” instead of “each man”. And if a woman has a husband, she is a wife and we should say “each wife” instead of “each woman.” Otherwise, we are changing the meaning of the text to imply two things. First, that a man should only have one wife and second, that because of temptation men and women should marry.
But, what is the thrust of Paul’s instruction? The context is the temptation of sexual immorality, so the best reading of the text would be this:
Because of the temptation of porneia around us, each husband is to have his own wife (rather than the wife of another man- which is porneia) and each wife have the husband belonging to her (and not any other man, which is porneia).
Keep in mind that Paul was a Pharisee who was well trained in the Law and he knew what sexual immorality was… as well as what it wasn’t. He was also well aware of the prohibition on adding to the Law. As he phrased this, it is correct in terms of the Law and he is not adding any new restriction to Christians.
However, there is no requirement to marry in that passage because it’s immediately followed by verses 3-5 as a continuous instruction to the married. Because of the rampant sexual immorality and idolatry that provides temptation, the husband is told to focus on his own wife and the wife is told to focus on her own husband and that instruction is followed by an explanation of how it’s done:
“The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.”
This is not instruction requiring marriage, if anything, Paul is advising not to get married.
Finally we get to verse 8-9
“But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
Paul says it is better to marry than to burn, but that is in no way a command to marry and nothing has changed. A virgin is still married with the act of intercourse. The unmarried (eligible to marry) and the widow are married when they decide to marry and sex won’t make them married until they agree to marry. Note that I take that phrase “to the unmarried and to widows” to mean the non-virgin women who are eligible to marry. Paul knew that men needed no authorization to marry and now that he just forbid them from using whores in the previous chapter they’ll have the motivation to do so.
Having said that, take note of the phrase “let them marry”. The form of that word is imperative and the implication was the church was preventing women who desired marriage from marrying. Paul is telling the church that if the women who are not under a man’s authority desire to marry to let them marry. Consider the instruction a bit later to the father of the virgin (who has no agency) that he does well if he allows her to marry and does better if he refuses to allow her to marry. Paul does not have the authority to tell the father what to do with his daughter, but he does have the authority to tell the church to let (allow, not hinder) the eligible women who desire to marry to marry.
You said:
“What the Apostle Paul explains repeatedly in this passage is that marriage is the solution to sexual temptation. If you don’t desire sex, do not marry. But if you desire sex, the only licit way to pursue it is to marry. And once married, you don’t have the right to refuse sex to your spouse because this would create temptation for sexual immorality.
Would you believe that, more or less, I agree with you?
However, that is completely irrelevant to the rather narrow, nuanced point I have made in the past and continue to make. Your conclusion was this:
“The text is clear. Marriage is the only permitted path to sex. That we have done great violence to marriage doesn’t (and can’t) change this. However, the fact that we are thwarting God’s plan by destroying marriage should be deeply humbling and convicting. Divorce, child support, and even the subversion of headship are all questions of sexual immorality.”
This is where it gets nuanced. Marriage is NOT the only *permitted* path to sex, it is the *repository* of sex. Take that as the statement of a theologian and consider it.
Consider the widow. If she has to have a “test drive” prior to saying “I do” to the man, is she in sin? According to the Bible, she is NOT. Should she be doing that merely for pleasure? No, but the decision is up to her. But if it were leading to marriage, is she in sin? That isn’t the question, she isn’t in sin if she’d doing it for pleasure or not, the point is she *should* only be doing such a thing within the path of getting married.
Under God’s design, a woman is born and grows up in her father’s house. Then she is married and goes to lie with her husband. After that are the exceptions, because this means either a woman is a virgin waiting to be married, a married woman or a woman who has been married.
Should men and women be married when they have sex? Consider that when the man penetrates a woman, he is committing to marriage to her. Every single time. Every time a man has sex with his wife, he is re-affirming his commitment to their marriage. The only way a man and an eligible woman are not married when they have sex is if she’s not a virgin and not married. At that point she has a choice. She could choose to be a whore… or she could choose to have sex with a man before she marries him. It’s her choice. And it isn’t a sin.
The idea that I’m promoting a “free love” atmosphere is incorrect. All I’ve done is point out what the rules actually are. Can they be abused? Absolutely. So can the rules for just about anything.
What is the central point? That the virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity. Everything after that is details.
Congrats, you just proved its sinful to be a fertile woman. Maybe you aught to rethink your understanding of scripture.
@Dalrock
Do we have any actual evidence for this or is it just wishful thinking?
@SirHamster – “What do you mean by “bring a married couple together”? If they’re a married couple at the point in time they come together for sex, the existence of their marriage clearly preceded the sexual act! and “But as Genesis says, a woman becomes a man’s wife even before they become one flesh.”
Examine Mark 10. v6: God created male and female (Genesis 1:27). v7-8: Man leaves his parents and becomes one flesh with his wife (Genesis 2:24). v9: Therefore: man should not separate what God has joined together. Jesus explains Genesis 2:24 by saying that it is God joining a man and woman together. Now the language of Genesis 2:24 is sexual language, so it follows then that God joins a man and woman together through sex. Paul also quotes this in the context of prostitution, referring to sex (1 Cor 6). Both Paul and Jesus presume that Genesis 2:24 pertains to everyone, both virgins and non-virgins alike. Thus we arrive at the conclusion: all sex is [a presumption of] marriage, so all non-marital sex is wrong.
Jesus equated becoming one flesh with marriage by stating that a divorce (the ending of a marriage) is a forbidden attempted reversal of the sexual act of becoming one flesh. She may be a statuatory (covenental) wife prior to sex, but they are not one-flesh. At what point would they become joined together by God if not sex? Upon bethrothal? No, that did not always occur. Look at the various ways that AT listed for ways that a man can acquire a wife. There is no common point at which they are joined together other than sex. The vast majority of biblical marriages were consummated. Those that were not (like David and Abishag) were treated as aberrations. It has always been assumed that a proper marriage would be consummated. Why make a big deal about consummating a marriage if it didn’t initiate the marriage proper?
@Hose_B – “If you have sex with a woman who isn’t the wife of another man, the covenant is EXPECTED by God.”
Yes! Sex always creates an expectation of marriage because they become one-flesh. If it does not lead to marriage it is, as you say, fornication. While I have a few minor quibbles with what you said, you’ve summarized the biblical view better than anyone so far.
@Artisanal Toad – “I effectively told every man here that if he didn’t get his woman’s virginity, she (in almost all cases) isn’t his wife…That should have provoked a firestorm, but it got left alone.”
I suspect that quite a bit more than 5% of us did it the right way and don’t find this to be a particularly provocative point worthy of debate.
SirHamster whines:
There is indeed a liar in this conversation. Granted, he’s harmless, and no one of consequence takes him seriously. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the kook SirHamster…
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/
So glad to see this looney back, too. He was gone for a while. He’s back to dance for his elders and betters, and he intends to amuse and entertain. A good thing, since it is really the only thing he’s capable of doing.
Regards,
Boxer
My Nigga Toad:
Oh LOLOLOL! An affinity for dyke pr0n fits his personality. I’m sure I’d enjoy a link to another example of SirHamster’s personal problems, tactlessly spewed across the internet in said temper tantrum. Feel free to get at me in e-mail if it’s more convenient.
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Billy:
He called SirHamster an idiot. Guess what, SirHamster is an idiot, by any standard you want to apply. He has brought absolutely nothing thoughtful to the table in this conversation. He’s personalized and sexualized his opponents rather than making an argument. As near as I remember, that’s all he’s ever done.
I think it’s a waste of time to entertain SirHamster. He’s a masochist who finds his self-worth by indulging in hostile banter on the internet (poor soul), but Toad ain’t lying.
You really ought to pay attention to what he’s doing. He’s making valid arguments (they aren’t sound, because he starts with a false premise, but they’re valid).
If I had to guess, I’d pin My Nigga Toad as being an attorney, a philosophy professor, or a professional writer of commercial advertisements. He’s persuasive, he knows logic, and he has a pretty good vocabulary.
You should thank Dalrock, because he’s taking the time to do what none of the rest of you guys usually do, which is to debate him at an appropriately high level. (To be fair, most of the rest of us probably don’t have what it takes to keep up – I know I don’t.)
Best,
Boxer
Paniym said:
So when the church figures out a way to have marriages without the State polluting it with it’s policies then lets start a conversation. Otherwise all conversation is meaningless.
Absolutely. Most states are pretty adamant that they will intrude on your private marriage. Alberta “might” not; they allow a couple to create their own “Adult Interdependent Partnership”, where I think you can create your own rules, PLUS be explicitly denying that you have an “official” marriage.
Just recently divorced after a 40 year marriage
Condolences. May God heal your mind, heart and spirit.
@squid_hunt:
But the standard is 1. not to engage in impure thoughts and 2. not to engage in lascivious or licentious behavior. Masturbation and pornography fail on both counts.
You are wrong about masturbation being a sin. Read all of Lev 15. Decide whether the term “unclean” means that it is a sin for a woman to be in the act of menstruating, or for a man to have sex with his own wife. Then apply your decision to the paragraph at verse 16 re emission of semen.
And if you decide that it is a sin for a woman to menstruate, read 1 Cor 10:12-13. Since a woman cannot choose to not menstruate, and since it is (supposedly) a sin for her to do so, these facts show that God is a liar, as demonstrated by his false promise in 1 Cor 10, right? Please explain this supposed contradiction. Also read James 1:13-15, and deal with the (supposed) lie there too.
If you decide that it is a sin for a man to have sex with his wife, read the 1 Cor 10:12-13 passage, plus 1 Cor 7:1-5, and explain the (supposed) contradiction. And also James 1:13-15, per above.
Personally, I think the “uncleanness” parts of the law are meant to make absolutely clear that ALL men are incapable of being perfect and acceptable to God, on their own merits. Even the man who perfectly fulfills the 10 commandments will still have regular occurrences of “uncleanness”. Lev 15 makes this impossible to avoid, both for men (emissions of semen) and for women (menstruation). Gee, this just happens to line up with the rest of Scripture… Rom 10:1-13, Matt 5:48, Titus 3:3-8 (not by righteous things we have done), Eph 2:8-10, etc.
Mycroft Jones at least partially did the exercise, and his response at 11:48 would lead us to conclude that sex with your own wife is a sin. It’s right there in the text at verse 18.
Earl, you should read the related passages, as your response to Lev 15 also shows problems with your first response. I encourage you to read the whole chapter, plus the related passages I gave.
You (squid_hunt) are possibly wrong on pornography. A person could covet, or fantasize about sex with, the woman in the picture. They could also do that for any person they see on the street.
Or the perso may choose to not permit covetous or adulterous thoughts. Note that some people will not be able to refrain from going into the sin of covetous/adulterous thought; Matt 5:29-30 and Rom 14:14-15 would be relevant, if you are willing to read them. However, just because I am too weak to refrain from going into the sin of covetous/adulterous thought does not mean every other person would, given the same situation. Again, if you are willing, read Rom 14:1-4. I should not condemn the man who does not have the same weaknesses that I have.
feministhater spouted the lack of society support or even church support leads me to believe you are all full of shit
+1
Earl: I’m still waiting on the specific verse in Scripture that says ‘by Bible/Scripture alone’.
I gave you a couple a the prior thread. See https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/moving-beyond-the-nuclear-family/#comment-241484
ys said it reveals much to me about their social circle, which matters, because we tend to group ourselves around our spiritual equals.
Do you think at all? I want to find a decent church. The best I can do is to attend immigrant churches, which I do. Even these however, are immigrant congregations in Canada. The ones in Ukraine had drastically less open rebellion.
As for English churches, even the so-called pastors show they take unworthy women into their house (Josh 24:14-15), thus showing which God they follow. Useless for marital training, the entire lot of them. I regret that this is true.
ive met this kind of idiocy before and there is no end to the rules they want to add to the bible.
… almost makes one think of Jesus’ words in Matt 23, eh?
MKT: you read at a 3rd grade level
Well, can you do any better? Do the Lev 15 exercise above, and let us know.
@Earl: I’d like to see where it says in Scripture specifically it says it is evil or immoral to have an abortion.
Easy. Ex 20:13, and if you need clarification, try Psa 139:13.
Your attempt to equate masturbation with adultery, similar to murder with killing a child, is unwise. Murdering a child is murder, so of course they are the same.
MKT: Paul and other writers ALWAYS tell Christians to “flee,” “abstain,” “put to death,” etc. all forms of sexual temptation.
Yup. And if you want to know what is “sexual temptation”, then read the Scriptures. You seem to have a problem with wanting to add your own ideas about “sexual temptation” to what God said. Pretty ballsy. Stupid and blasphemous, but ballsy.
Boxer: I’ve been in the northwest US/ southwest Canada
Are you going through Vancouver? If so, let me know. I’ll buy you a steak 🙂
Dear Dale:
Thanks Dale! I was actually in Surrey for a couple weeks in July. I went back up to BC (Cranbrook this time) last week. I’ve been in North Idaho since.
The whole province is on fire. I’m still coughing up the remnants of my visit.
I think Dalrock in Meatspace would be a fun idea. The problem is security. If I went and posted a date/time/location, some fat bluehaired women would likely crash the party, to beg for the D and show us all their armpit hair. I might have to think about the possibility of coordinating something open but defensible…
Best,
Boxer
@Boxer – “He’s making valid arguments ..He’s persuasive, he knows logic”
AT’s overall thesis is a huge, intricate, intertwined, internally consistent, logically valid, circular argument. And it is not logically sound. But I’ve also found a number of flaws in some of his sub-arguments (on his site, not here) rendering them logically invalid. I’ve yet to see him refute those objections with anything more than a restatement of his original claim or an ‘argument from spam’. So you give a bit too much credit. That said, I’d rather debate with AT than 99.9% of anyone else on the internet because at least he makes you think hard.
@Artisanal Toad – “Consider that when the man penetrates a woman, he is committing to marriage to her. Every single time….The only way a man and an eligible woman are not married when they have sex is if she’s not a virgin and not married. At that point she has a choice….And it isn’t a sin….The idea that I’m promoting a “free love” atmosphere is incorrect.”
If you had just stopped at the first sentence you would have been fine. PIV creates an expectation of marriage (in the eyes of God) because it is a one-flesh joining. There is no acceptable alternative that is not a violation of God’s expectation. Whoring is not okay (and there is no such thing as a righteous prostitute), so when you are accused of setting a ‘free love atmosphere’, it is because you fail to condemn whoring when it is clearly counter to God’s intended plan: it is sex without an expectation of marriage.
Dear Derek:
Often times his arguments aren’t merely circular. He also starts from a false premise or two. To be fair, I don’t think Toad consciously knows he’s lying (if he did, he’d have to feel guilty for breaking those commandments… so much easier to play jiggery pokery and selectively read some redefined words into the bible and make everything seem cool.)
I also don’t know if I could pin down an overall thesis to Toad’s work. When you use this term, what do you mean?
There seem to be a couple of mutually exclusive things he argues for. His constellation of polygamy arguments suggest a specific thesis, but then this often explodes upon examination, to very broad claims about intuitionism in interpreting the text, which is a much more general claim, with the potential to overturn everything else. (I mean, really, if your intuition overrides the words of the bible, why cite it at all?) He also writes some mild literary erotica about spanking and S&M that’s a little weird. I can’t tell if he’s actually arguing for this, or just messing with his readers. (If you can’t troll your own blog, you may as well not have one.) Much of his game stuff is pretty good. I’d suggest a trip to Toad’s Hall for anyone who is interested in any of this stuff.
Ah well… I wish Toad the best as he tries to manage multiple wives. He alludes to them being hotter than the average Mormon polygamist chick… I believe him, but even so, it’s better him than me.
Best,
Boxer
Dale-
I am no idiot. What kind of church are you looking for? Haven’t you boasted on here before about fornicating with women 30 years younger than you?
Anyway, I am amazed that you, and others, are being so submissive to the church’s leadership. That is admirable, considering the problems of the 21st century church. You are submitting, and saying that until the church does something on your behalf, like fix marriage for you, your hands are tied. That is trust, to place your life so securely in another as you do when you trust their leadership.
Report from the trenches:
I don’t know that masterbation is a sin, but it is not ideal. It progresses like sin, and I fast from it to try and keep it under control.
I tried marriage to avoid sexual sin, but crapped out on a sexless marriage. Woe is me. So I avoid sexual sin that involves others, and keep it to myself. And I advise single men to avoid marriage 2.0 like the plague. It offers nothing but occasion for sin. And you can get that while single. If you don’t burn, you’ve got no business marrying. If you burn, marriage will not help you.
I don’t reckon masterbation is a good thing. I look at it as a replacement good that prevents sin with greater impact. When my burning dies down with age, I will be glad to leave the practice behind. Be aware that marriage is not an answer to the problem, and merely adds burden to your life.
You are better off single.
ys:
I asked if you thought, because you were making assumptions about a guy’s spiritual character based on his church. You did not provide a defense of the reasoning behind your accusation. As I tried to point out, there are barely any decent churches that I have seen in Canada; a man’s chose to choose the best of a bad lot should not be seen as a poor reflection on a man’s character.
As for my supposed fornicating, you may have me confused with the other Dale. I noticed within the last few days that another poster with the exact same handle posted. This has happened previously as well. Sorry for the confusion, but I am not interested in using a full name to disambiguate. And if I were to fornicate with women 30 years younger than me, that would supposedly be child abuse 🙂 I ain’t that old yet 🙂
I do not submit to false church leaders. I do think it is fair to ask why the supposed leaders do not lead their flock into obedience however.
I do admit I would like to see some leaders work on a legal solution for our corrupt laws. This is because, while I am willing to contribute, I do not feel like funding the full effort that would likely be required. This is one of the reasons for any group; we can do more together than individually.
I fear however that Dalrock’s comments about there being no legal solution for marriage are correct. (Above he wrote: “The problem isn’t so much divorce laws (assets/alimony) as child support. ” I think that in Canada, a pre-nup cannot set out an agreement for future child support. The family court judge has the right to steal 10k a month from you if he wants; it is for “the benefit of the child”.)
Dale:
“Yup. And if you want to know what is “sexual temptation”, then read the Scriptures. You seem to have a problem with wanting to add your own ideas about “sexual temptation” to what God said. Pretty ballsy. Stupid and blasphemous, but ballsy.”
No, there’s absolutely no problem. From sexual thoughts to abstaining from fleshly desires to possessing your vessel in sanctification, the teachings and implications are all there. But like the Pharisees and others in the Bible, you’d rather look for loopholes are argue about what “is” really is.
Dale-
Understand on the name confusion. If not for anonymity, few of us would be here, I venture.
I know many pastors get the current setup wrong. There are also some, I know 2 at least, who see it for what it is. What are they to do? Preach and teach their people the truth, I imagine. Not likely to solve that one any other way. No different than gay marriage, which is now legal here in the U.S. Not good, but not the fault of the church. It is comparable to marriage in that way.
Not been to Canada much, but I know the situation is worse up there. You have my sympathies.
The trouble with Christians using the Old Testament (Old Covenant) for rules is that Christians are under the New Testament (New Covenant). The Old Testament writings are instructive, but they are not instructions.
Another way to think about: The NT reveals what was hidden in the OT. So you don’t read the OT to find out what is meant in the NT, but vice-versa. That’s what revelation is, and Christianity is a religion of revelation. It is not a philosophy. This particular one of the “freedom of Christians to bang sluts” is just a particularly bad, particularly inane, case of sophistry.
@Boxer
I don’t reciprocate your feelings. If I had a blog, I wouldn’t dedicate any posts to you. I’d rather you stick to the truth, but your determined lying and rewriting the past is a compliment of sorts.
I recently finished an archive binge of Cane Caldo’s blog, and I find it interesting how you were acting respectful and chummy to him in his comments in 2013.
https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/dont-shut-your-eyes-when-i-turn-on-the-lights/#comment-5254
But ever since he agreed that you lied, you now dedicate posts to character assassinating him as a Fake Christian. Sad. Especially the part where you play the victim and cry that you’re being silenced because criticism. It was pretty strange for your fans to plead to Dalrock to unban you. Who gave them that mistaken notion?
For health reasons, I no longer have the energy to write long, detailed, and well supported comments like I did before I adopted the moniker Mycroft Jones. So I’m grateful to those who followed up when I mentioned Leviticus 15 and connected the Scriptural dots as I hoped they would.
That said, if there ever is a Dalrock in Meatspace in the Lower Mainland, please count me in.
Dale in Vancouver: piano tuner and musician?
Mycroft: Nope. It would drive me bonkers to tune an entire piano. 🙂 One of only many examples of how we benefit from God’s decision to not make us all the same, but rather as unique individuals, each with different strengths and desires. Even when this thread shows some of the conflicts that can arise from such differences 🙂 🙂 🙂
Praise God for his creativity, wisdom and mercy!
@Dale Amen and amen. Conflict is fine, and fun, if it is the iron sharpens iron variety.
@Boxer I’ve also wondered if Toad was consciously lying. His writing style reminds me of Jack Kruse. I understand about pushing the Overton Window, but his “sex makes a marriage” concept throws the father’s role right out the window. The penalty for the promiscuous woman is one thing; the penalty for the man who seduces a virgin isn’t like the penalty for adultery; it is like the penalty for theft. When you pay restitution for a stolen item, that doesn’t mean the item is now yours and that you legitimately “bought” it. If you kill the cow or eat the food or enjoy the virginity, that is gone forever. Your penalty is double. Look at the penalty price of the virgin; it is double the rate for women normally. A lot of people miss that.
Read it again…the important part is when there is the need for the sin offerning.
Sure they can instigage a divorce by themselves…however they have to find a bishop who declares the marriage wasn’t lawful or never happened to get an annulment.
It also equates nocturnal emissions as sin and menstruation as well. It’s obvious that that sin is being unclean and thus the atonement for this is becoming clean. No longer necessary to wait 7 days though as we both have readily available fresh water and soap. The atonement is covered under Christ dying on the cross for our sins so the sacrifice of the birds is not needed anymore.
Look at the wording. Any bodily discharge that is unclean. Any. Thus nocturnal emissions are considered the same sin as masturbation.
Quite honestly, Lev 15 reads like a health manual of the OT on how to remain clean so as not to become diseased and unhealthy. It’s like the equivalent of a TV advert of an anti-bacterial soap.
Thank you for this, that clarifies quite a bit and makes far more sense.
Cane Caldo
August 12, 2017 at 12:04 am
“The trouble with Christians using the Old Testament (Old Covenant) for rules is that Christians are under the New Testament (New Covenant). The Old Testament writings are instructive, but they are not instructions.
Another way to think about: The NT reveals what was hidden in the OT. So you don’t read the OT to find out what is meant in the NT, but vice-versa. That’s what revelation is, and Christianity is a religion of revelation. It is not a philosophy. This particular one of the “freedom of Christians to bang sluts” is just a particularly bad, particularly inane, case of sophistry”
Amen. The problem is the porn/wanking/bang-sluts crowd knows next to nothing about hermeneutics. The OT is filled with symbolism and types that were fulfilled through Christ in the NT. Like you said, they’re trying to derive their sexual ethics by working backwards. You start with the principles taught in the NT (which absolutely condemn fapping to porn…or sleeping with anyone besides your wife). The Old Covenant laws can then be understood and helpful, but you don’t just through a list in Leviticus and then say “see…it’s not in there…so I can do X, Y and z. Yippee!”
@necroking48
Calling me a churchian. That’s pretty funny.
I never referenced porn but have previously and agree with you that it is over emphasized. You should still quit it. It takes you away from God.
For further clarification since I brought up the church’s stance on offenses against chastity…here’s what it states chastity is:
‘Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.’
‘Chastity is a moral virtue. It is also a gift from God, a grace, a fruit of spiritual effort. The Holy Spirit enables one whom the water of Baptism has regenerated to imitate the purity of Christ.’
‘All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has “put on Christ,” the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.’
Offenses against it are lust, masturbation, fornication, porn, prostitution, rape, and homosexual acts.
Then later it states the offenses against the dignity of marriage…adultery, divorce, polygamy, incest, free-union, and ‘trial marriage’ which from what I understand is a fancy term for cohabitation.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Perhaps you can explain why those three things are questions of sexual immorality.
From what I can gather divorce is an offense against the dignity of marriage, child support is a legal result of an offense against the dignity of marriage, and subversion of headship is an act of rebellion against God (which may or may not be the result of sexual immorality).
Just from my small amount of investigation there seems to be two different offenses when it comes to human sexuality…offenses against chastity and offenses against the dignity of marriage. We as a society have certainly done a lot since the sexual revolution to bring about many offenses against both.
@feministhater
Since you quoted me (out of context) at the beginning of this comment thread I’m gonna ask you something I asked in the last thread:
You said: “it’s actually the acute awareness that there are those who truly do not care to help, nor solve the problem of male sexual frustration at all.”
1: How are we supposed to solve that problem?
2: Why is it our job to solve that problem?
If God is the one who made those rules then your complaint is with Him or if you don’t like bad women then your complaint is with them. In no way can you complain to us for telling you the rules and whine that those rules aren’t fair and we are meany-heads for communicating them. I’m not responsible for fixing women or for providing “other” young men great women to marry. Also, I’m not responsible for telling women how to act, though if any ever bother to ask me I will give them the same basic advice I tried to give you: marry or be celibate or risk Hell. But I’m not God, so those aren’t my rules. You can whine at me for telling you them as a proxy for God, but that won’t do you any good. Nor will threatening me (again as a proxy for God) with immorality unless the rules are changed.
Holy crap, but the histrionics and whining because you (oh sorry “other men”) might have to go without sex is ridiculous. Did you see Dunkirk? All those kids drowning amd hpw many of them were virgins? So no sex ever and then they f***ing drowned. A life of suffering for the Lord’s sake is supposed to make you joyful. I know its a hard doctrine, but we are literally called to rejoice in suffering for the Lord and rather die than sin even once. Embrace the suck, man. It helps, I’m serious, it really helps.
It wasn’t out of context. It was merely to show that Matthew 5:28 is always quoted in almost all threads relating to Christian sexual relations. In that particular instance, it really wasn’t about your content of the quote, just the fact that you brought up Matthew 5:28 which was in response to deti.
I don’t want your help. Stop your shaming. Fuck off.
True…we are all going to suffer at some point for various reasons. It’s a lot better to unite it to our Lord’s cross and suffering than to be bitter about it or trying to avoid it.
The Bible clearly shows God’s view of sex and marriage. He is the originator of marriage and the creator of sexual desire and attraction. These things were only meant for our marriage mate. At Matthew 19:8 Jesus says something that is profound. After mentioning Moses allowing divorce he said, “but that has not been the case from the beginning.” Jesus shows that the way people thought of divorce, adultery and marriage, even at that time was incorrect and needed to be adjusted. Adam had one wife, Eve. That was the way it was supposed to be. Multiple wives is adultery. Matthew 19:4,5 shows that the original way God created mankind was for one man and one woman to be joined in marriage to become one flesh. Anything outside of that arrangement is sin. 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 outlines that fornicators, adulterers, etc. “will not inherit the kingdom”. It would be crazy to assume you can be a single man, have sex with a prostitute and not think that that action falls into the categories listed in that scripture. There are no loop holes in the Bible. There’s no way around it. Sex outside of the marriage between a man and a woman is sinful. It’s up to us to decide if we want to comply with that principle. God has given us free will to make whatever decision we want but He will not shield us from the consequences of our actions.
Earl: Read it again…the important part is when there is the need for the sin offerning.
Oi, some of you are so stubborn. You refuse to read the entire chapter, and do so with an open mind to see what it actually says.
Did you actually read all of Lev 15, and the related passages (e.g. 1 Cor 10) that I listed above?
Since you refuse to do the small amount of reading I suggested, I will follow your suggestion that you gave (quote above). There are two parts of Lev 15 that require an offering. The first is contained in verse 14-15.
13 “‘When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. 14 On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the Lord to the entrance to the tent of meeting and give them to the priest. 15 The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering[a] and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the Lord for the man because of his discharge.
16 “‘When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
Well, looky here. Verses 13 to 15 are dealing with a “discharge”. This “discharge” requires the sacrifices.
Verses 16-18, by contrast, deal with an emission of semen. These verses on semen require…. no sacrifice at all. Hmmm…. that is interesting.
So we see that a discharge requires a sacrifice and that an emission of semen does not. Hmmm…. Well, at the very least, since you are focusing on the sacrifice, we see that the emission of semen is not a sin, just the discharge is. Gee, I thought you believed Lev 15 showed emission of semen was a sin — do you see what happens when we read more than 2 verses before deciding we know what a passage is teaching?
So what is the “discharge”? Given the second passage for women below, it appears to be blood, or maybe pus, incontinence, or some other medical problem. That really sucks, since God now apparently considers it a sin to be sick. Plus, God designed our bodies to respond with bleeding, pus, and various other remedial actions in response to various medical issues such as cuts to our skin, infections, etc. So God apparently forces us to sin. If you had read the passages I listed above, you might see why this is obviously an incorrect interpretation.
And the second passage that requires a sacrifice:
25 “‘When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Anyone who touches them will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
28 “‘When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge.
Ok, so the part in verse 25 makes clear that the “discharge” in question is not just her regular menstruation.
And, as far as I am aware, women cannot ejaculate semen, so this “discharge” is obviously not the result of masturbation. Since the same word is used in the first passage above, this reaffirms that the emission of semen and the “discharge” are not the same thing.
So the discharge might be continual bleeding from her womb, as the result of some medical issue, or perhaps one of the other medical issues I suggested above (pus, etc.). So, in this case where a woman is sick due to some medical issue, she has sinned, according your your view, because a sacrifice is required.
Again, this kind of sucks, as we do not choose to become sick. (Well, normal people do not.) So, God is calling sin something that we cannot avoid. Which is a problem due to the 1 Cor 10 verse I listed above that I suspect you did not read.
So, to answer your question, Lev 15 shows twice that being sick is sinful, but having an emission of semen is not.
Now your turn. Read the entire chapter, plus the verses I listed above.
The only thing difficult about this, is a stubborn unwillingness to submit your attitudes to what the Bible actually says, rather than what you have been taught it says or feel it should say. At least Earl has a partial excuse in this area… his religion teaches that their traditions are the basis for faith, rather than the Bible. The “sola scriptura” crowd does not have that excuse.
No you are ignorant about my faith…it teaches Scripture, tradition, and Magisterium are the basis for the faith, not just ‘trad alone’. They don’t pit against each other.
However you are correct about what Lev 15 says.
@Dale, yes its insane anyone could read Lev15 and think it calls jerkin off sinful. But we seem to be dealing with people who cannot learn anything that alters their current faulty belief system in any way.
You do wonder, if they get so easily understandable and basic stuff wrong, how far does their twisted theology go ?
there really is no point debating them any further. unless it comes from the pulpit forget it. I’m surprised they are here reading tbh.
Jesus would call them “stiff necked whitewashed tombs”.
They think we are looking for loopholes in scripture, the irony is that Jesus was closing one with Mat5:28. Can I condemn their thinking? only as far it goes with them influencing others, you will notice a distinct lack of grace with them. But if a mans junk only springs into life when the marriage document is signed I cant argue with that and if they never find women sexually attractive or never dwell on it I cant argue with that either. Lucky them ! But then there is no need for marriage in that situation either.
@Earl:
No you are ignorant about my faith…
Agreed. Not as ignorant as you may think, but still, I am ignorant about it, compared to you. My comment was meant to criticize those who do not submit to Scripture. I was trying to admit that you at least have a partial excuse for not doing so.
But yes, you are of course correct. The RCC claims to also submit to Scripture. As you said, the RCC teaches:
Scripture, tradition, and Magisterium are the basis for the faith, not just ‘trad alone’. They don’t pit against each other.
I guess you will disagree, but it appears to me, based on your past comments, that if the Bible says one thing, or does not say it, but your traditions go against or add to Scripture, you frequently go with the traditions. I must admit it would be a massively false and unfair accusation to claim you do not at all submit to Scripture however; your final comment, re Lev 15, appears to show that you changed your mind to do exactly that.
You are simply trying to simultaneously obey all three items you listed above. I do not envy your position. Jesus talks about trying to obey only two masters in Matt 6:19-24, and shows in that example that it cannot be done.
To be fair, the Ukrainian Orthodox religion describes their traditions as explanations of God’s word. So these are seen as fuller explanations that are themselves based on God in some way, helping people understand how to correctly obey God in their daily life. I assume the RCC presents their traditions and orders from their Magesterium similarly.
I had to look up Jack Kruse to find out who he was, and I’ve never read any material he authored, but I think this is a good jumping-off point for some general observations.
Toad isn’t a genius, but he is very bright (his vocabulary, combined with the speed at which he types a coherent rant, is a strong indication). It seems to me that people who are in this range have a number of unique difficulties. They tend to be isolated intellectually (few of their peers can really understand the details of the points they make, so they quit trying to make them in public). This leads to increased atomization. They have the ability to go through unique steps to make inferences. Since they become accustomed to holding large quantities of information in their heads, and since they have few peers to review the implications of their thoughts, they are ironically subject to error at least as much as the average dummox (like ya boy Boxer).
Guys like Daniel Dennett and Michael Shermer talk about this stuff. Smart people tend to be uniquely susceptible to weird conspiracy theories, and you can often find very bright people in The $cient0l0gysts or the Mutual UFO Network. This is not really a coincidence.
Toad has actually revised this position at least once, since I’ve been reading his work. For example:
https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2017/03/29/theology-for-men-of-the-west-one-flesh/
This suggests, to me, that Toad is smart enough to accept criticism and self-aware enough to regularly re-evaluate his positions. I’m hopeful that the author of Dalrock blog will inspire him to moderate his more extreme views. This original article here was excellent, as were many of the comments.
This is a really good, salient point, that I have never caught before. In the old days, when Pater Familias was part of the social order, raping a virgin girl often meant that the girl would be honor killed by relatives. At the very least, she probably wouldn’t get married, because the physical intactness was the only way to prove virginity (and hence to provide a safeguard to the husband’s family that she wasn’t already knocked up by some wandering playa). Thus when the girl was raped, she’d be a burden not only to her parents, but to the entire community: a useless eater, or perhaps a harlot who encouraged vice and social problems in others.
Best,
Boxer
@all
All of you, pay attention for a moment. Yes, that includes a few or you who are hiding in the shadows. I’m right here. No need to refer to me in the third person… or in veiled references.
I made a point which you have all completely overlooked. Are you cowards?
Can you actually pick up your Bible and study it for a moment?
The most interesting thing is those who should have said something have not. Where are the theological heroes? No… where is anyone?
@Boxer
Let me know when you’ll be in the NOLA area. The girls would like an opportunity to take you to task. Your safety is assured, I’ll be present.
‘You are simply trying to simultaneously obey all three items you listed above. I do not envy your position. Jesus talks about trying to obey only two masters in Matt 6:19-24, and shows in that example that it cannot be done.’
Except in that example…the two masters are God and wealth. Like I said…they don’t oppose or put against each other so it is not serving different masters.
And Jesus addressed what defiles a person…Moses I think had an incomplete understanding.
Artisanal Toad @ 1:48 pm:
“All of you, pay attention for a moment. Yes, that includes a few or you who are hiding in the shadows. I’m right here. No need to refer to me in the third person… or in veiled references.
“I made a point which you have all completely overlooked. Are you cowards?
“Can you actually pick up your Bible and study it for a moment?”
Do you enjoy losing to me enough to call me out? Very well, grab your ankles while I pick up my Bible….
[ORBITAL CANNON READY. BRACKETING TARGET]
Artisanal Toad @ August 11, 2017 at 8:27 pm:
“What is the central point? That the virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity. Everything after that is details.”
[FIRE FOR EFFECT]
Deut. 22:23-24: “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death… the man because he violated another man’s wife.”
There you have it. The OT calls a virgin pledged to be married a wife. Marriage without sex. Everything after that is details.
[SECOND PASS]
Matt. 1:18-19: “This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.”
[RECHARGING]
@AT, well since you have laid down the gauntlet
if PIV =marriage then explain
OT: Lot having sex with his daughters = not marriage
OT: father in law having sex with daughter in law unknown to him was masquerading as a hooker = not marriage
OT: onan having sex with sister in law =not marriage
NT: Paul saying expel the immoral believer as he was having sex with stepmom =not marriage
NT:Jesus saying to the woman at the well “Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”” =not marriage
A Millennial talks about his parents’ divorce. (Xantippe and BlueEyedLady make their usual, ‘insightful’ comments)
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1060864
An Account: Catholic Marriage: When Marriage Is from God, a Source of Divine Grace for Husband and Wife.
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1061217
Dating & age gaps… old subject, I know!
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1061249
Having finally read to the bottom of the meta, I have a few comments:
1. Some Christians falsely consider adultery through lust to be equivalent to physical adultery. Evangelical feminists have been quick to grab onto this interpretation of Matthew 5:28. One commentator noted that Jesus was attempting to show by this that none of his listeners were free from breaking the commandment – they all had lusted after a woman – with which I agree. But lust in the head – like covetousness itself – is not actionable because it is not visible. None of us reads minds, so none of us can tell what someone was thinking when he saw that woman or that picture. So to attempt to use this expansion of the law to bring a man under charges for adultery assumes a godlike knowledge of a person’s mind and motives. Only God and I know whether that look was sinful.
To those who cling to the equivalence interpretation, ask them if they would interpret Matthew 5:22, couched in the same kind of language, to allow us to bring the death penalty against hatred: should we kill the child or the girlfriend who says “I hate you!”?
Of course not. In these passages, it is God who judges. After all, none of us can condemn anyone to the fires of hell.
2. On masturbation. When I was a young Christian in the 70’s I read all kinds of evangelical viewpoints on the subject. Some teachers (even James Dobson) said it was no big deal, as long as no lust was involved. That would mean no porn, no visualizing women nude, etc. But they considered masturbation without lust as a relief valve in the age of delayed marriage.
Others said no, God has provided such relief through our sleeping nocturnal emissions, for which we need to feel no guilt.
None, to my recollection, went in the other direction, allowing the use of pornographic images as an aid to the act. They all considered it to some degree to involve the women so pictured, and damaging to them or to our other relationships.
But I heard all kinds of rationalizations from guys in my men’s small groups at the time: The women who have their pictures taken for the magazines or in the movies aren’t believers and are going to hell anyway. I can masturbate to stories or drawings of fictional women, because I am not lusting after “a woman”. And I confess, I bought into those ideas myself once in awhile. But somehow my own thoughts would never stay there…
What strikes me at present is the openness with which guys discuss it – and are proud of it. “Fap culture” indeed. Not so in my youth, where we all knew that we all did it, but we never talked about it, except once in awhile in the men’s group when some preacher bore down hard on us.
Irony: the passage from Proverbs about drinking water from your own cistern that Dalrock quoted is indeed about not committing adultery.
For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey,
and her speech is smoother than oil;
4 but in the end she is bitter as gall,
@Minesweeper
Before I begin, please take note that I did not say PIV=marriage, that is only true in the case of the eligible virgin. Emphasis on the word ‘eligible’. Please refer to Deut. 22:28-29 on how far that goes, as well as the fact that sex is the act of marriage. The unstated part that most simply cannot comprehend is the man is making his commitment to marry with the act of penetrating the woman. Every. Single. Time.
Minesweeper, it’s the act of sex with an eligible VIRGIN that creates a marriage. Incest doesn’t count. So…
OT: Lot having sex with his daughters = not marriage
That was a forbidden relationship. Fathers are forbidden to have sex with their daughters, meaning they cannot marry them.
OT: father in law having sex with daughter in law unknown to him was masquerading as a hooker = not marriage
Another case of a forbidden relationship
OT: onan having sex with sister in law =not marriage
Wrong, completely wrong. Onan was married to her under the law of the Levirate marriage. His sin was trying to avoid getting her pregnant. He was her husband.
NT: Paul saying expel the immoral believer as he was having sex with stepmom =not marriage
The relationship was forbidden at least 4 times and cursed as well. The father was still alive so it was also a case of adultery.
NT:Jesus saying to the woman at the well “Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”” =not marriage
Please explain the meaning of the word “had” and we can go from there. Were they her husbands, or were they another woman’s husband? Was Christ saying she had legitimately been married 5 times? We don’t know. What we do know is that the man she currently had is NOT her husband. And guess what? She obviously was NOT a virgin.
When the eligible virgin (meaning, eligible to marry that man, the relationship is not forbidden) has sex she is married to the man who gets her virginity. How far does that go? Take a look at Deut. 22:28-29.
I would not pass up the chance to have a coffee (or a good single malt scotch) with the Notorious T.O.A.D., and I’m sure your wives are very nice.
In about a week-and-a-half my life I will be back on the third coast, full time. Send me an email home boy. We’ll do it at some point.
Boxer
@AT,misunderstood your reasoning, if its just penetrating a virgin = auto marriage unless dad disapproves, there is certainly a lot of evidence for that. So what else are you going on about ? I havnt been following what your discussing and the history behind it.
So Onan was an automatic husband even without a ceremony. But what about Gen 38:18 when she conceived a child by Judah which would have been adultery. This is so interesting, as I did a search on Zara her 1st born from Judah and it seems her descendants ended up 1st migrating to Spain, then Scotland and Ireland.This is absolutely amazing.
Explain “had” : Jesus uses a slightly different meaning of the same word to describe past husbands and the current unmarried one. Past and current tense with the same word as far as I can tell.
_____Strongs_____
G2192 echo ekh’-o, including an alternate form scheo skheh’-o; (used in certain tenses only)
a primary verb;
to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession; ability, contiuity, relation, or condition).
KJV: be (able, X hold, possessed with), accompany, + begin to amend, can(+ -not), X conceive, count, diseased, do + eat, + enjoy, + fear, following, have, hold, keep, + lack, + go to law, lie, + must needs, + of necessity, + need, next, + recover, + reign, + rest, + return, X sick, take for, + tremble, + uncircumcised, use.
Im learning alot from this, thank you. I dont tend to dive into the OT much, not get into history.
@AT
Also are you missing the caveat in Deut. 22:28-29. in that they have to be discovered ? So a quickie round the back of the cow shed that no one finds out about dosnt apply ? According to that one anyway, im sure there a many more similar verses and Im sure you know them all.
Artisanal Toad:
“Let me know when you’ll be in the NOLA area. The girls would like an opportunity to take you to task. Your safety is assured, I’ll be present”.
AT and his “girls” in NOLA with guaranteed safety. What could go wrong? Maybe they can break bread and serve the Lord together in a strip joint. Hallelujah!
@Hmmm
“So to attempt to use this expansion of the law to bring a man under charges for adultery”
This statement is crucial about what Jesus meant with Matt 5:28. We tend to see others sins and want to prosecute them for it. He is essentially saying the same as when he saved the woman caught in adultery “Let those who have not sinned cast the first stone.”
The OT Law was given so that by continually failing it, we would see that would NEVER be able to keep it. Which is then why Jesus was sent to take the penalty (New covenant, If we trust in him) He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. We are still expected to wholeheartedly try to follow God’s laws (which you must read the OT to understand), Knowing we will fail but that Jesus will forgive our failures if we are earnestly striving for Gods will.
OT lays down the law. NT saves us from it and tells us not to take the job of punishing those who break it. Punishment is Gods job.
@MKT
“AT and his “girls” in NOLA with guaranteed safety. What could go wrong? Maybe they can break bread and serve the Lord together in a strip joint. Hallelujah!”
NOLA is more than just “strip joints” and to reduce the entire city down to that is shows an incredible lack of insight. Its actually an amazing city with an
The part about AT and his “girls” just shows disrespect. As long as Toad believes they are his wives and he is willing to stand before God and present them as his “radiant church”, then so be it. He is certainly not telling you that you should have one, two or zero wives.
Hose_B:
A little sensitive, aren’t we? I’ve been to NOLA many times and used to live near there. There’s a nice, historical side of the city I enjoy visiting, but it’s been seedy for decades. Read “A Confederacy of Dunces” (written in the 1960s). Also, the wealthier, more cultured families have been leaving the city for some time, and it accelerated after Katrina. (Speaking of which, look how your “amazing” city’s barbarians behaved then…for shame.)
I am disrespectful towards AT and make no qualms about it. He’s a false teacher, wannabe cult leader in the proud tradition of Koresh, Warren Jeffs , etc. Plenty of heretics believe they can stand before God…and many of them try to justify their beliefs/lifestyle by torturing Scripture. AT is no exception.
Just because your tradition is old, doesn’t make it true.
God gave us the law to teach us what is sin (Rom 7:7-12, 15:4). If the OT does not condemn it, its not sin and you are adding to the law to say otherwise. It’s that simple.
Thats why all of you who would condemn masturbation, porn, sex acts you don’t like, or sex outside of marriage keep avoiding OT scripture in favor of misconstruing NT verses. You haven’t a leg to stand on.
But we see through the gas-lighting and hypocrisy and so does everyone else, thats why you lost the culture war.
And since you haven’t learned from that failure, you’ll loose the next one too.
@AT,”But what about Gen 38:18 when she conceived a child by Judah which would have been adultery.” – now I think about it, how could it have been adultery, both were widowed.
Gary Eden:
“Thats why all of you who would condemn masturbation, porn, sex acts you don’t like, or sex outside of marriage keep avoiding OT scripture in favor of misconstruing NT verses…thats why you lost the culture war.”
Only if “misconstruing” = reading and having a mature understanding. BTW, we lost the culture war because you and your type were too busy beating their meat and mainlining porn.”
@MKT
Two of my wives are capable of taking you down and making you beg for your life without any help from anyone. The other one would simply kill you with kindness. They will all cheerfully agree that they were misfits and misguided until they found their way into my life… but now they are part of my life. And if Jacob was married to his wives, then I’m married to mine. Whether that bothers you or not is irrelevant. As far as we are concerned, we are married.
Given what Boxer has said about me, they are all pretty pissed off with him. Boxer should understand that, knowing what he has said. I thought it reasonable to guarantee his safety under the circumstances. They are lovable, but they’re also lethal.
In a past life, I developed some friendships with a few frogs after I got tasked with working with them. They are a rather tight group but decided I was a dry land member of their community, which is how I came to be known as the Toad. As in, not a member of the frog community, but quite nice to have around when things go sideways. Something of cousin. I’m also considered to be an artist of sorts… so they overlooked my obvious shortcomings and appreciated me for what I do well. I overlooked the fact they were squids and we got along. I should point out that I was no longer in service and was in fact working on the other side of the fence when I got to know these creatures. We didn’t let that bother us, we got along. It helped immensely that half of us were Southrons. Blood will tell.
So, yes, I’m a Toad. And nothing you (or anyone else) can throw at me will stick.
@AT: “Two of my wives are capable of taking you down and making you beg for your life without any help from anyone.”
The rest of what you wrote was cryptic and kind of interesting…some military references for sure. But I seriously doubt that first sentence. In his mid-to-late 40s, Vox Day said he could take Ronda Rousey, and it’s the same with me and your wives (not that I have any desire to fight women). I’m a fit/strong guy for my age and trained in a bit in MMA back when it was called NHB (no holds barred).
@MKT
You’re an idiot. You’d never see the stiletto until after the work was done. You would not survive the result. I know my wives. They’d smile while they stabbed you in the liver
@AT
Didn’t realize we’re talking weapons and the element of surprise. These don’t exactly sound like Proverbs 31 or I Timothy 2 women, though. Once again, it sounds like you’ve let your porn/action movie/D&D/etc. fantasy world dictate the lens of how you handle Scripture. Shameful.
@ Derek
Jesus repeats Genesis 1 to say that God created male and female. He repeats Genesis 2 to say that a man leaves his parents to be joined to his wife.
But the language here is that he is joined to his wife. It does not say he is joined to an eligible virgin/woman. Thus, the wife has the status of wife before any sexual union of one flesh occurs. You can also see this concept in action in the OT law. GunnerQ in a recent post notes that in Deuteronomy law a pledged virgin who is violated has the status of a wife for the purpose of punishing the man involved.
Definition of consummation:
“to complete (the union of a marriage) by the first marital sexual intercourse.”
What completes is by definition something different than what initiates. If an action both initiates and consummates, both of those words are inapplicable because the action is atomic.
@ Gunner Q
A pleasure to watch the haughty brought low. For all the bluster and the walls of text, he has no understanding of the Bible he pretends to revere.
@Earl, @MKT and the rest of you godless, depraved Roman Catholics can take your popery, marilolatry, works righteousness, pagan foolishness garbage and take a flying leap and join Jerome and Augustine and the rest of these sick depraved ascetics and join them in hell
What makes you pharisees worse than feminists with their shaming tactics, belittling men for their sex drives, and pious condemnation of male sexuality is that we know where we stand with feminists but you cloak your ascetic garbage under the guise of Christianity
ys says, “I did not have sex before marriage. Difficult? Very. But I did it.”
I notice you didn’t say, “I did not pull my pud before marriage. Difficult? Very. But I did it.”
Wouldn’t be very self-righteous, would you? I could practically guarantee you were not a virgin before marriage in the strictest sense: never had sex AND never wanked. You’re so full of it.
AT is like the undead. You can shoot him, stomp him, crush him, or burn him…..he keeps coming towards you with his uneven gait, and bloody, disfigured face. He never dies. And he never tires of peddling his arrant nonsense and damnable heresies everywhere he goes.
This man is so deep in false teachings, only the special grace of God can deliver him. Like Simon, AT is “in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity”, and does not realize that he holds lies in his right hand.
Throughout Christendom, it was a settled belief that the Christian faith did not encourage polygyny in any way, and no one on record during the NT period, practiced polygyny, except those who had done so before they became Christians.
AT believes he understood the Scriptures more than all the Apostles combined. He married more than one wife.
And he also came up with this obsolete law, stating that sex with “an eligible virgin” equals marriage. He conveniently forgot the other verses close to the ones he liked to quote:
Exodus 22:
16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
If the above verses apply to us today, then the following verses apply to us as well:
18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
So, if AT would be consistent, he should start executing witches and those who worship other gods, and the sexual perverts.
Even the passage made it clear that sex with a virgin did not equal marriage, otherwise, there would be no further need to “endow her to be his wife”, as the sex act would have achieved that purpose.
(Exodus 22:16 talked about a man seducing a virgin; Deuteronomy 22:28 talked about a man raping a virgin; the punishment was the same: marry the woman and never divorce her).
When you examine the law however, you quickly realize that God’s mandate to the seducer/rapist to marry the virgin woman she had sex with was the most humane thing to do.
In Israel in those days, a woman who was found not to be a virgin on her wedding night would be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Moreover, once it was known that a woman had lost her virginity without being married, she became unmarriageable to most men, young or old.
Thus, the next best thing to save the seduced/raped woman from a life sentence of loneliness and shame was to force the man responsible for her predicament to marry her for life. It was like the “China shop rule”: you break it; you buy it.
Virginity was so valuable in Israel in those days that if a man falsely accused a virgin of not being a virgin, he would pay a fine (See Deut 22:19).
It must be stated, again, that the entire OT laws (including AT’s favorite “rape a virgin if you want her” law) have been done away in Christ. We are not obligated to obey any laws in the OT, unless such laws have been made part of the New Covenant. Anyone who subjects themselves to any OT laws is obligated to keep ALL the OT laws, and those who do so are still in their sins.
Galatians 3:
Feminists only shame and claim morality based off gender, which is the route you are going…it’s a matter of sin. I wouldn’t condone women committing sexual sins either.
Actually on the contrary I’m not differentiating based upon gender….I’m attacking the anti-sexual asceticism, prevalent in early church fathers like Augustine, who wanted to chop his own dick off, that now infects Roman Catholicism and anti-sexual zealots today
There’s nothing wrong in condemning sexual sins, that are mentioned in scripture….where I take issue, is with any idiot, who decides to add to scripture, and call things “sin” that are not sins
“sin is a transgression of the LAW” Romans 4:15, 1st John 3:4, and where no LAW exists, there is NO transgression of that law
That’s God’s definition, of what constitutes sin…..anyone, including YOU, who rejects that definition, is rejecting the plain counsel of GOD almighty himself….so therefore, if a man calls something a sin, especially something sexual, then you had better find some scripture to back it up, unless you want to be accused by God as going beyond what the scriptures say, and adding YOUR OWN SINS to what God has already decreed
Starting from that foundation, we learn, that:
1: Masturbation/fapping is NOWHERE mentioned in the bible, not one time, so it can not be a sin
2: Those who masturbate, are now being singled out as the litmus test on what constitutes “true Christians” or not
3: Anti-sexual ascetics, like those found in this thread, are obsessed with sexual sins, to the exclusion of EVERYTHING else….To them, that is the be all, end all of one’s entire existence
4: And most importantly, they are Christ rejecting, works righteousness zealots, who reject the cross and God’s salvation of grace, and are attempting through their self denial of the flesh, to earn their salvation and redemption through obedience to the LAW
This is why you find them, predominantly in the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are under the Old Covenant), and the Old Testament
They reject the notion that ALL have sinned, and are now obsessed with earning God’s favor by obedience to the LAW
Paul calls them, the “concision”, and “dogs”, and preaching a false gospel, that will see them burn in hell forever….They are in fact under a curse,……….”Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them”
Masturbation/fapping is NOWHERE mentioned in the bible, not one time, so it can not be a sin
Really?
How about meth? Cocaine? Weed? It musat be OK for Christians to use those substances, because, by your logic, they were not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible, and therefore, their use cannot be sinful.
Have you never read that “you are not your own, but you are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your mind, which are God’s”?
How does fapping glorify God in your body, again? Can you go before the church on Sunday morning, and tell it as a testimony that God is being glorified through your masturbation?
Better yet, can you, with a straight face, recommend masturbation to a new Christian, as a method of glorifying God?
Any honest Christian must agree that masturbation is, at the very least, questionable.
If you have doubts about any action, and you go ahead and engage in such an action, you are condemned, because doubtful actions are sinful. The Scripture is clear on that:
“He that doubteth is damned…because whatsoever is not of faith is sin”.
Romans 14:23
Minesweeper says, “Can I condemn their thinking? only as far it goes with them influencing others, you will notice a distinct lack of grace with them.”
Indeed. Lack of grace. Stubbornness. Self-righteousness. Arrogance. Pride. Staunchness. Etc.
Dale says, “I guess you will disagree, but it appears to me, based on your past comments, that if the Bible says one thing, or does not say it, but your traditions go against or add to Scripture, you frequently go with the traditions.” And, “You are simply trying to simultaneously obey all three items you listed above. I do not envy your position. Jesus talks about trying to obey only two masters in Matt 6:19-24, and shows in that example that it cannot be done.”
That’s right. Very eloquently put. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Well done.
If you can prove to me that masturbation isn’t a form of sexual immorality or impurity by using Scripture, I’ll concede. Fleeing sexual immorality and sexual immorality are considered acts of the flesh is certainly in Scripture.
And I have no idea where the thought that Augustine would recommend that came from (I imagine it doesn’t exist unless someone can provide proof)
But St. Paul mentions to ‘put to death’ these things of our earthly nature…because of the wrath of God. The only argument being used is that fapping isn’t specifically mentioned in Scripture…but I’d like to know how it isn’t considered sexually immoral or at the very least an act of the earthly flesh that can lead to impurity.
Colossians 3:5-7
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived.
It is impossible to prove a negative….This axiom fits all frames of experience, NOT just moral issues, so if you’re looking at it from that point of view, It will be impossible for me to prove to you that masturbating is NOT a sin.
Also, your term “sexual immorality” is NOT a term found in the bible, that is a man made term, the actual term is “FORNICATION”…..in order for you to decide if masturbation fits under the umbrella of fornication, you will have to do a word search and see it it fits…..let me assure you, IT DOESN’T
Also your term “impurity” is not mentioned in the bible either, it is a man made term, and it is tainted and tinged with “sex”…..i.e sexual purity, but the bible NEVER uses the term “pure” in regards to sexuality, not 1 damn friggin time, on the contrary, it is the anti-sexual ascetics who have added to the word of God and reinterpreted that term to fit their agenda
If you don’t believe me, do a word search with a concordance, and look at every occurrence of the word “pure” in the bible
The bible never tells a man to “flee from sexual immorality”…..it tells him to flee from fornication
The lying deceived apostates in this comments section, have continually expanded Matthew 5’s specific term ADULTERY to mean fornication when it does no such thing……ascetics NEED Matthew 5 changed because it destroys their anti-sexual/no fapping, no wanking agenda, if Christ is talking about a violation of a particular law, for e.g looking at/wanking over/desiring a single, un-married woman doesn’t constitute committing the sin of ADULTERY in God’s eyes, so therefore it’s impossible for these ascetics to charge mankind with sin when they wank……solution?, just change Christ’s words in Matthew 5, and pretend he’s talking about women in general, and THEN you can accuse men for sinning when they wank, in other words, when the bible doesn’t support your view point, just change the bible!!!
The lying, deceived apostates interpret falsely the word “lust” to mean sexual desire/fantasy/fapping……..These idiots of course run into huge problems with Luke 22:15 where Jesus Himself lusted, and where Paul tells people to lust in 1st Timothy 3:1 when they desire, ἐπιθυμέω the office of a Bishop
This continual obsession to charge something that occurs totally in a man’s mind, and that harms no one, i.e wanking, and that occurs NOWHERE in the bible, shows me how utterly un balanced these ascetics in here really are. It surely is the greatest proof of special pleading, and grasping at straws, and the fruit of a Devilish inspired sexual neurosis that is mind boggling to behold….Like I said, Sigmund Freud would have a field day analysing these people
Going by their deluded thinking, every time a man watches the news, and gets angry, he is “sinning” and committing murder
Keep dancing around with ‘man made terms’…you sound like atheists who state the Bible is just a bunch of texts written by man rather than the inspired Word of God.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-sex/
“How about meth? Cocaine? Weed? It musat be OK for Christians to use those substances, because, by your logic, they were not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible”…..end quote
Stop taking my words out of context, I didn’t say, if it’s not found in the bible, it must be ok,….. i said in order for something to fall under the category of ‘sin” there must be a LAW forbidding the practice
So does taking Meth, Cocaine, weed constitute sin?, nope, I don’t believe it does, because there is NO LAW condemning the use of those products…HOWEVER, they could fall under the umbrella of “drunkenness” which is a sin
*”How does fapping glorify God in your body?”*…….end quote
How does going to the toilet glorify God?, how does taking your wife, and fucking her hard, fast and deep glorify God?, how does driving your car glorify God?
Once again, you ascetics reinterpret the phrase “Glorify God” in an anti-sexual framework….Do a word search, and see that the term “Glorify God” is never used in that manner
Once you start with the assumption that fapping is wrong and sinful, you interpret everything around that
*”Better yet, can you, with a straight face, recommend masturbation to a new Christian, as a method of glorifying God?”*….end quote
Absolutely I could, in fact I would tell a new Christian, that God in fact gave him masturbation as a gift and a safety valve to release sexual tension while he’s waiting to find a wife to meet his sexual needs….I would also tell him that 99% of all wives will rebel against God, and sin against God by denying that man sexual release in marriage…she will continue to make excuses and not give her man sex, so God gave him masturbation as an outlet, so he continue to meet his sexual needs, without fear of betraying his wife
*”Any honest Christian must agree that masturbation is, at the very least, questionable.
If you have doubts about any action, and you go ahead and engage in such an action, you are condemned, because doubtful actions are sinful.”*….end quote
I certainly WILL NOT admit masturbation is questionable, without clear scriptural support to the contrary
Why would I or others have any doubt about an action?…..My conscience is clear and doesn’t condemn me
If on the other hand YOU believe fapping is wrong, then it would violate only YOUR conscience, so it would be sinful for YOU to fap….It’s not “sinful” in God’s eyes, but because you don’t have that advance knowledge, it will sinful for YOU only….just like those new Christians who felt it was sin to eat food offered to idols, it wasn’t really a sin, but it did violate their consciences because they were weak in the faith….same analogy applies to masturbation
@necroking48 says: August 13, 2017 at 7:57 am
“How about meth? Cocaine? Weed? It musat be OK for Christians to use those substances, because, by your logic, they were not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible”…
not to mention these things were not around during biblical times, where as masturbation and naked scantily clad women\paintings\statues (heck half naked hookers on every corner in places) certainly were.
fleeing from sexual immorality was to stay away from half naked hookers hanging out at the pagan temple. I know I would have to flee in that situation. I find prostitution disgusting but I would still have to leg it away.
@necro, like Joseph fleeing his masters wife (who then falsely accused him of rape leading to jail). Its that kind of fleeing. its a physical act. not a mental act.
G5343 pheugo fyoo’-go
apparently a primary verb;
to run away (literally or figuratively); by implication, to shun; by analogy, to vanish.
KJV: escape, flee (away).
What I do not understand, is why the OT laws for keeping kosher and other thing were done away with by Christ, but all the OT stuff about marrying a virgin just by having sex with her is somehow still relevant. Christ specifically supported the 10 commandments, so we carry over those, and he rejected the clean/unclean food distinction, and the no work on the Sabbath stuff as he healed people on it…but he still supports the commandments.
So, why is some OT relevant and some isn’t and why?
Yes, unbelievable but true nevertheless, that Augustine wished he was castrated as a young man to relieve himself of the guilt and torture of sexuality…..of course all during that time, Augustine the tortured hypocrite was banging his lover
If you look at any of the lists of sins mentioned like Colossians 3, Galatians 5, ist Corinthians 6 etc, you will see roughly a 30/70 split between sexual sins and “other” sins of the flesh…..guess what portion is devoted to the sexual sins?, if you said it constitutes 70% you would be wrong, it is only around 30%….so my question is why does ascetics castigate others for violating ONLY the sexual sins but plays down the other sins of the flesh like idolatry, drunkenness, thieves, wrath, envy etc??
What specific text does he say in regards to that?
@necro, correct, the blue pill\feminised church is OBSESSED with sexual sins committed by MEN only. Everything else can basically be thrown out at this point. Porn is the only “sin” I have heard repeatedly mentioned at church and then only for men.
They may as well throw away the entire bible and just say it outright “if a man watches porn or looks with lust at a female he has committed adultery in heart and deserves to be divorced, thrown out of church and denied access to his kids – cause he is obviously utterly deviant and could corrupt them”
It is essentially a new religion, that dosnt focus on God at all, but on the false sins of men.
necroking48 says:
August 13, 2017 at 12:56 am
“@Earl, @MKT and the rest of you godless, depraved Roman Catholics”
I’m not a Roman Catholic. Sheesh, that’s like the 20th false assumption from the Church of the Circle Jerkers. It’s no wonder you’re such a bunch of modern-day Pharisees who refuse to interpret your Bibles correctly. You ignore the dozens of NT principles (fleeing sexual immorality, honoring your vessel, putting sexual desires to death, making no provision for the flesh, etc.) which are, as Christ said, the “weightier matters” of the law. Instead, you go searching through the Pentateuch for a single verse about fapping and porn.
I pray you’ll learn what the Christian life is truly about (Word, sacraments, prayer, serving) and not gratifying your flesh (wanking, porn, whores, swinging). You’ve completely missed the point so far. Those enslaved to fapping/porn will never be effective in building the kingdom–and I speak from experience. If you don’t think you’re enslaved, try giving them up for a year (or even a month). By the way, “slavery” to sin is the Biblical term for your activities, not “addicted” or “inclined to” or “enjoy because AT says it’s okay.” Read Romans 6 and other passages.
I’m being serious….there is NO such term in the bible as “sexual immorality”, and it’s not my attempt to evade what the scriptures says
You got the term “sexual immorality” from the wicked perversions of God’s word, they use dynamic equivalence based upon interpretation, instead of translation….The KJV uses the term “fornication”
That’s an extremely powerful point you make, which the ascetics avoid….the term fleeing is physical, not a mental act at all
This may give some insight…
“After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
“Peter said to Him, “Explain the parable to us.” Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”
A lot of the laws in the OT also had to do with outward cleanliness of a person as well as sin. Jesus basically with this statement said the important thing that defiles a person is sin. That’s why things like leprosy and birth defects were considered ‘sins’ by the Jewish culture…when in reality they weren’t. The things relevant from the OT to the NT are what causes sin.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15
Minesweeper:
“the blue pill\feminised church is OBSESSED with sexual sins committed by MEN only… Porn is the only “sin” I have heard repeatedly mentioned at church and then only for men.”
For the record, I agree with this. That’s why I posted a link to a horrible article (by a lady churchian) in Dalrock’s previous post. But that doesn’t mean porn is okay. It should be preached against, along with female porn (romance novels), contentious wives (Proverbs), wives who won’t submit or show respect to husbands, spouses who refuse to have sex, adultery, fornication and other issues. Singling porn/men out and denying the sins of women/wives is a grave error of the modern church. I’m not debating that.
I still don’t know where the justification of divorce from that comes from…even the verse where divorce from sexual immorality comes from (Matt 5:32) it is the husband divorcing the wife. There is no claim anywhere in Scripture that I know of that gives a wife the right to divorce a husband. Only our civil laws and backwards thinking pastors give them that idea…and with the majority of initiation of divorce being women, they are certainly looking to the state rather than God’s word.
@Minesweeper, You are absolutely correct, it’s actually a new religion, based on blue pill, feminist, anti-sexual celibacy rhetoric cloaked behind a veneer of Christianity
I mean I can destroy, and have done so in here, their entire misguided philosophy, but I haven’t dealt with FEMALE MASTURBATION on purpose….i wonder how these sex hating ascetics handle women who fap?, lol, women in general frig off with NO porn, or sexual images at all, haha, Are these women lusting then?
But wait!!! only men can lust, and only men can sin *facepalm*
Did you not see my post about not condoning sexual sins by women either? Women are guilty of committing sexual sins just like men. Quit turning this into a gender thing like feminists do…this is about sin.
@MKT
*”You ignore the dozens of NT principles (fleeing sexual immorality, honoring your vessel, putting sexual desires to death, making no provision for the flesh, etc.)”*…..end quote
1: I have already dealt with the term “sexual immorality”, it occurs NOWHERE in the bible, and is in fact a horrible dynamic equivalence, it’s NOT a translation of the term πορνεια at all
2: the term “possess his vessel” occurs only 1 time in the bible, in 1st Thessalonians 4:4, and deals with sanctification and HONOR…..no mention of fapping implied or otherwise
3: Not 1 time does the bible say to put “sexual desires” to death….you LIED, you reinterpreted the bible to suit your godless, pagan, anti-sexuality garbage
4: the phrase “make no provision for the flesh” deals with NON-SEXUAL sins as well, in fact they constitute the majority of sins mentioned….once again, fapping is NOT mentioned
5: the weightier matter of the law ARE NOT about “making no provision for the flesh”….YOU LIED, they are according to Jesus himself they are judgment, mercy and faith
I think you need to quit your garbage as you clearly lost this round
Dear Necroking:
I can prove a negative right now. Check it…
Theorem: ~A
Proof:
1. A -> B
2. ~B
… ~A
QED
Of course, Toad’s an intuitionist, so LEM is out the window, and he won’t accept that without a few more lines. (little joke for the mathy types.)
That wasn’t very nice. Serious question: If the author of Dalrock purged all the non-protestants from the comments section here, where would the married Catholic bros go to talk about the feminist problem in their church.
(hint: “Catholic Answers” is incorrect)
Catholics care about marriage and a healthy society, too. Most of the issues discussed here are directly relevant to them.
I think you might be talking about Origen. You’re right that reading commentary is tricky. Some of the smartest peeps in history were also prone to tail chasing and self-destruction. I mentioned that upthread.
Reading early church fathers is a little like reading the Talmud. Nothing these guys say is definitive. You have the benefit of getting all the smartest people in western civilization, and they all give their take on the text, so it’s very valuable. Occasionally you’ll realize that one of them must have been having a bad day, or maybe this other one had some psychological problems… In the end they’re smart people, but they’re just people.
Best,
Boxer
I am NOT turning this into a “gender” thing…Of course women are guilty of sexual sin as well, but you have automatically assumed, without scriptural warrant, I might add, that fapping is sin, which obviously include women.
The thing is though, no looking, no lusting, generally, is involved when a woman masturbates, so how on earth do you ascetics charge women with sin, when they’re clearly not lusting, or looking at anything when they fap?
Don’t bother answering, as it is a rhetorical and stupid question because I believe no sin is involved when a woman masturbates…..this is the un holy hell hole you god forsaken ascetics get into when you try to make the bible say something is a sin when it’s silent on a particular topic
First you condemn all men for the sin of masturbation BECAUSE it involves looking/lusting at something….YET you still have the temerity to condemn women for masturbation, even though there is NO LOOKING AND NO LUSTING….the tortured semantics you devils employ to justify your anti-sexual beliefs is staggering to say the least
SirHamster Blathers:
Folks, there is no force on earth that can still the tragic flap-flap-flapping of SirHamsters dirty maw. Gawdhelpus, there’s just no stopping it. It is a vile horn of plenty, spewing an endless bounty of rotten fruit and offal, not dissimilar from an aged steer, which has been force-fed a diet of old prunes and Ex-Lax.
Man may someday cap volcanoes, dam up the Amazon, or build an escalator to the moon, but verily, I say unto you that nothing can be done to alleviate the suffering of those who are forced to wade through SirHamster’s sputterances. Nothing.
Galaxies collide in spectacular showers of stellar wreckage. Ten billion stars burst open to immediately collapse. The citizens of countless civilizations cry out in anguish as they’re pulled beyond the event horizon… but SirHamster blusters on. He blathers his idiotic fabrications here, he vomits up some baseless accusations there. He walls up comments sections while accosting helpless innocents with his mindless ponderings. You can see the eternal question in the pleading, saucer-eyes of Dalrock readers daily. Why, oh why, has this tragedy befallen us?
T’was a cruelty of fate that saw fit to miswire poor SirHamster’s skullstuffing, resulting in the non-stop kookfest that we’ve all enjoyed these past few years.
It seems that SirHamster will himself never understand that sanity hasn’t merely escaped him. He’s blasted the concept into a trillion microscopic cinders beneath the launch thrusters of a homosexual penis shaped Saturn V rocket. SirHamster rides it, spiralling wildly beyond the edge of reality, into the cold black depths of interstellar kookery. Those of us who occasionally tune in to his gibberings can only laugh hysterically, or perhaps stand agog in open-mouthed amazement, as his feeble, static-filled transmissions carry his last broken, desperate ravings…
“crackle crackle… you LIED… crackle… false teacher… crackle crackle… BOXER… crackle crackle… I KNEW….”
We can only hope, and pray to whatever god or gods we each hold dear, that his journey away from sanity carries him out of transmission range soon, as he continues to recede into the distant night of nutcase obscurity.
Regards,
Boxer
Are you really making that claim that a woman deliberately stimulating her genitals doesn’t have anything to do with lust?
@Boxer
*”Catholics care about marriage and a healthy society, too. Most of the issues discussed here are directly relevant to them”*
AGREED
*”I think you might be talking about Origen”*……..end quote
According to my sources, Augustine was so anti-sex that he WISHED to castrate himself, whereas Origin, was stupid enough to actually go ahead and do it…Ouch!
@earl
*”Are you really making that claim that a woman deliberately stimulating her genitals doesn’t have anything to do with lust?”*……end quote
Yes, absolutely I am making that claim….the reason why you find that so hard to understand, is because EVERY time you see the word “lust” you think it means sexual desire/feelings
The bible will define it’s own terms and lust is defined in Romans 7:7 as to Covet, and coveting contains no sexual connotation at all….It is the ascetics who like to enshrine the word lust with sexual desire
A woman who masturbates is relieving the sexual tension and build up of her naturally occurring and God given sex urge to copulate and her need to feel a penis inside her….Like with all things, a penis might not be available, so masturbation takes place…..Once again I iterate, if God felt it was a grave sin, He would have mentioned it somewhere in the bible, but he doesn’t
Dear Necro King:
I’m sure you’re right, in hindsight. I read City of God a long time ago. Recently, Toad suggested I crack Augustine again, but I have yet to do so (such a mediocre student). I ought to grab his work when my job starts back up.
Augustine was a reformed playa, and he probably had the same sort of zeal that an Alcoholics Anonymous member has. Something worked for him, and his life improved, and he just had to push it in the faces of his readers.
More generally, a lot of these guys tried to integrate a philosophical school called neoplatonism into the doctrine of the early church. That’s a fancy term for believing a set of propositions, one of which was a sort of matter/spirit duality. Those who got zealous about that would probably tell you that material things (like sex) are not conducive to a good spiritual life. St. Paul never went overboard in the text, but there are foreshadowings of this in the New Testament, so you can trace the idea back. Even so, you’re right that they tended to err on the side of an ideal purity (at the expense of the reality most of us live in).
Best,
Boxer
So you believe coveting a neighbor’s wife has no sexual connotation at all? Or lust of the flesh and eyes have no sexual connotation at all? If you believe that, you are very deceived…and I can understand why you would fight so hard against this.
1 John 2:16 King James Version (KJV)
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
I think a lot of credit from his conversion from what I know about Catholic saints went to his mother…St. Monica for constantly praying for him.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=1
Interesting sidenote I didn’t know…she married a Roman pagan who was said to have a violent temper. Rather than divorcing she prayed for him and he eventually converted as well.
I do find it interesting that in the ‘bad old days’ where you read about Christian women being married to pagan men who lived the life of debauchery you would expect…rather than trying to find some excuse to divorce them (which they wouldn’t have justification anyway), they prayed for their conversion.
And since the topic of what is and what isn’t in Scripture is constantly brought up…when it comes to divorce, the few times it is mentioned it is where the husband divorces the wife. There isn’t anything in there to my knowledge where it is the other way around or even hinted at…so any woman who thinks she is justified in doing it from ‘God’, doesn’t have any Scriptural backing (only a state one). I know I’m stating the obvious but no-fault divorce is much more destructive to marriage than sexual immorality.
Mad_kalak @ 8:12 am:
“So, why is some OT relevant and some isn’t and why?”
There are three kinds of laws in the Mosaic Law: moral, sanitary, and religious. The latter isn’t just worship but things to separate the Jews from Gentiles, to mark them out as a separate people for God.
We still keep the moral laws because we’re bound by the underlying morality, not the law itself. Don’t steal, don’t boink your neighbor’s wife, etc. The sanitary laws are mere good ideas for us today; the flush toilet is just as good as burying your waste outside the city limits with a shovel. And the religious laws that marked the Jews as separate from us Gentiles, well, we Gentiles are supposed to violate them. Go ahead, wear that cotton/polyester shirt in proud celebration that you are not a Jew!
Christ expanded the moral laws, ignored the sanitary laws and fulfilled/repealed the religious Laws. He is our high priest, no need for a Levite; our sacrifice, no need for altars; and His Spirit is our teacher, no need for an authoritarian clergy with shiny relics. The book of Hebrews goes into depth on this.
Remember the OT’s purpose was nation-building, not church-building. Exclusion, not inclusion. It was never intended to be a blueprint for all humanity.
@earl: “1 John 2:16 King James Version (KJV) + RM7:7 use the same word for “lust”
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”
G1939 epithumia ep-ee-thoo-mee’-ah
from G1937;
a longing (especially for what is forbidden).
KJV: concupiscence, desire, lust (after).
Mat5:28 – is different.
G1937 epithumeo ep-ee-thoo-meh’-o
from G1909 and G2372;
to set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or otherwise).
KJV: covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).
G1939 – God says I can’t have this career/get that Ferrari or someone’s wife, but I long to do it\have it.
G1937 – God says I can’t have this career/get that Ferrari or someone’s wife, but I’m going to try to do it\take it.
coveting your neighbours wife or his oxen, fundamentally the same, the fact you find the wife sexually attractive isnt even in the equation.
@earl,”Mark 10:12King James Version (KJV)
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”
so she can divorce, but unless she marries another she hasn’t committed adultery. You need a sinful act to break a marriage contract and adultery is it. And its generally the one initiating the divorce(nowadays legal separation) that wants to commit adultery.
I wont be commentating again on this thread, good luck yall !
Really makes you wonder how St. Monica would be received if she showed up in the CAF, to spill her story to nice folks like Blue Eyed Lady and Xanthippe, no?
Good to know that it is in there…and states how either gender can commit adultery.
Granted there’s always going to be the ‘he’s a terrible man, divorce him and ruin your marriage/family because he doesn’t care about your happiness’ bits of advice…at least there’s more than a few posts that usually suggest prayer or that they will be praying for them. Not all hope is lost.
With very liberal divorce laws (no-fault) combining with the fact that marriage is the only moral sexual outlet…it is no wonder both offenses against marriage and chastity are rampant. It’s easy to see why the ‘sexual revolution’ has produce plenty of failed marriages and involuntary celibates.
To put stumbling blocks before a person is a greater sin than the sin caused by the stumbling block. The churches have not preserved marriage, they’ve encouraged women to be stumbling blocks in telling them not to consider marriage until their late thirties. That, we know is sin. The other, is an assumed sin.
As has been shown, neither Jesus nor the Apostles felt need to call out masturbation as a sin. Of all the options for a man who is deprived of marriage for an outlet to their passions, masturbation seems better than adultery, fornication, sodomy or rape. Acquinas made the argument that it wasn’t a sin where performed to maintain function, or to prepare for the actual act, that it was part of our design. In this day and age, where marriage as described in the bible is no longer provided by the churches, masturbation is in my opinion, the better that you do this than engage in adultery, fornication, etc. that Paul described marriage as being back in the day.
Jerking off and porn are both contemporary concerns because of modern privacy and more generally wealth. Wealth obviously gives time which breeds idleness, but it also gave us private bathrooms and private bedrooms, cheap locks, and so forth. Porn or no porn: Having a quick jerk just isn’t something you do in a communal space…which was virtually all space until the 20th century. So no wonder it wasn’t a big topic until now.
Now I’m curious: Has any civilization–Christian or otherwise–ever lacked a taboo against masturbation? Has the phrase, “I’ll be down in a jiffy Mom; just gotta crank one out first!”, ever without irony or scorn been uttered by a civilized son?
And if so, then so what? Why is it wrong for The West to hold it as a taboo?
@Earl: I know I’m stating the obvious but no-fault divorce is much more destructive to marriage than sexual immorality.
I’d suggest looking further back (almost 100 years now): the adoption of sterile coupling as marriage is indeed the contemporary woe with no-fault divorce amplifying the problem–a field that is plowed and sown but has no produce, is that a good field? A plowed and sown field, where none of the seed can take hold, is weed choked.
It is no mistake, in Gen. 4:1, the first child becomes a tiller of soil, an allusion to his father’s cultivation of his mother.
I doubt very much that jerking off as a relief for sexual frustration was ever thwarted by a lack of privacy.
Thank your responses Earl and Gunner Q. This whole debate makes more sense now.
@Boxer
Probably this thread: https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1047030
(Not one of the several famous 30-pager threads, but still fairly indicative of the state of CAF.)
‘I’d suggest looking further back (almost 100 years now): the adoption of sterile coupling as marriage is indeed the contemporary woe with no-fault divorce amplifying the problem–a field that is plowed and sown but has no produce, is that a good field? A plowed and sown field, where none of the seed can take hold, is weed choked.’
I’m assuming you mean sterile coupling when the married couple was fertile. Was there a specific group either sexual or religious that promoted this idea?
Thats not exactly what Aquinas said. Different sexual sins are offensive against different virtues.
Masturbation is an offense against chastity…whereas something like rape gets into offenses against chastity and justice.
http://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/2009/06/aquinas-on-sexual-sins-dangers-of-speaking-formally/
@necroking
The absence of something is the Bible is not evidence of lack of importance. The Bible makes no claim to be the end of all human knowledge. That’s a criticism atheiests make to mock Christians.
This type of thread must be incredibly vindicating for Catholics not bound just to the Bible and subject to the chaos of hermeneutics without authority or revelation To provide clarification.
The list of important things not mentioned in the Bible is pretty big since it is a small book written within the confines of a limited geography with the last entries around 1900 years ago at best. Society has made some…changes since than and might face new problems. Because while philosophically there is little new under the sun I can say with certainty the apostles did not have iPhones, understand planes, or deal with the implications of using narcotics to be an addict vs alleviate real pain and on and on. Are you arguing every other specific instance of sin is mentioned in the Bible specifically and not just catagorically?
Earl, I’m speaking of what I’ve read in Summa Theologiae. Acquinas says that masturbation isn’t the sin, but that the context. I can dig through for the actual words, but what I’ve stated is a fair summation of Acquinas.
The above should read: but that the context is.
Harpers :
If you are married to a Trump supporter, divorce them.
Never mind that there are countless examples of stupid women who are extremely attracted to a man, and only much later learn that he is for Trump.
Remember, women are laughably incapable of learning how women actually think.
As to taboos, they make sense. When women are available to be mothers and wives, masturbation instead is unnatural. But when women aren’t available to be wives or mothers, when those roles are believed to be ‘demeaning’ to women, masturbation is an inevitable symptom of such a context. It is still unnatural, it’s only natural in the currently unnatural context. The context needs to be fixed first in my opinion. Blaming people for responding to the context is not productive to solving the problem.
@Minesweeper
I was going to respond and answer @earl’s latest question, but your answer in here is perfect and doesn’t need any additional input from me
Coveting your wife contains no sexual element at all, it is merely the heart wishing to “possess” something that doesn’t belong to him
Mad_kalak
So, why is some OT relevant and some isn’t and why?
Earl gave some important comments. So did Gunner Q. In addition to what they wrote, consider this:
1) Christ re-affirmed the law. Matt 5:17-20, Luke 16:16-17. Hint: The earth has not passed away yet, so the law still stands.
2) Some portions of the law were subsequently cancelled; not by me, but by apostolic authority (cringing at using Earl’s term hah hah; I see apostolic authority as limited to what Jesus’ hand-picked apostles wrote in Scripture.). See Rom 14:1-6 re foods and special days.
3) Laws regarding purity from sin before God were not cancelled, but were fulfilled by Christ. So we no longer need to give sacrifices. Hebrews 7 talks about this; in particular see verses 23-28. “… who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” (emphasis added)
4) Laws like civil laws, such as the “do not boink your neighbour’s wife” mentioned by Gunner Q, were NEVER cancelled by Christ or his hand-picked apostles. In fact, Matt 5:17-48 shows Jesus expanding on them, going from the merely outward acts to also include the attitudes of the heart (hatred in Matt 5:21-26 and lusting for another man’s wife in Matt 5:27-28).
Remember the OT’s purpose was nation-building, not church-building. Exclusion, not inclusion. It was never intended to be a blueprint for all humanity.
I would disagree with this part of Gunner Q’s statement. Certainly, part of God’s instructions in OT times were for this purpose. See the conquest of Canaan, the rejection of the sinful practices of the prior inhabitants (Lev 20:1-2 and Lev 20:22-23.) But God’s instructions in the OT also include God’s commands for proper view and actions toward God and proper view and actions toward other people. (There is only One God, no stealing, coveting, cheating in business, etc.)
@Earl Are you really making that claim that a woman deliberately stimulating her genitals doesn’t have anything to do with lust?
In some cases, yes. I knew one girl that claimed she had trouble going to sleep unless she orgasmed first. I don’t know if that was every night or only sometimes. And since I am not a woman, I cannot definitively say whether it is possible for a woman to masturbate without coveting another woman’s husband — but I suspect it is very possible. It may not be possible for a particular woman, but that does not guarantee it is impossible for every other woman. Same as the fact that a particular man will consistently go into adulterous or covetous thoughts while masturbating is not proof that every other man will too.
Boxer said Something worked for him, and his life improved, and he just had to push it in the faces of his readers.
This is EXACTLY the problem we are facing in this “sexual immorality” thread. A man takes two things, conflates them, and presents them both as truth, thus using faulty reasoning. Example:
Statement 1: Titus 2:1-2 teaches men are to be self-controlled.
Statement 2: When I buy cookies, and allow myself to eat even one, I then proceed to eat the entire bag. Thus showing lack of the commanded self-control.
Conclusion: It is a sin to buy cookies. I must condemn all my brothers who do so.
Statement 1 is a truth. Not merely for me, but for all people form whom the command was intended (older men). (Although, now that I think of it, I am displeased at including myself in the “older” men category…)
Statement 2 is also truth, but only for me. Statement 2 is not necessarily true for all of you. I strongly suspect that most of you do not suffer from the same immaturity that I have. (You may be immature in other areas, but not this particular one.) Claiming it is true for everyone else — that is the lie. It MAY be true for some of you, maybe even most of you. But not all.
The Conclusion is based on faulty logic. The conclusion is actually TRUE for me. It is in fact wrong for me to buy cookies; Titus 2 tells me to be self-controlled, Matt 5:29-30 says to cut off from myself what causes me to sin, thus it is wrong to buy cookies — FOR ME.
But I cannot show the “thou shalt not buy cookies” command for all people in Scripture, therefore I have no valid basis to teach that to everyone else. Certainly, I can offer my struggles, and the limits I give to myself, as a suggestion if I see another man with the same struggles.
Boxer also wrote Even so, you’re right that they tended to err on the side of an ideal purity (at the expense of the reality most of us live in).
Compare this with Titus 1:10-16, which speaks about false teachers. In part, it says:
15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.
So, to those claiming that masturbation is not pure: Verse 15 applies to you. You show yourselves to be defiled and/or unbelieving. You also show you are “detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.” Good news is, you are not dead yet and you can change. Cheers!
Faulty logic:
I believe that kissing a woman not (yet) your wife is sexual immorality.
The Bible speaks against sexual immorality.
When the Bible uses the term “sexual immorality”, it obviously includes my ideas of what is sexually immoral.
Therefore, God agrees with me that kissing a woman other than your wife is sinful, and you are all disgusting perverts because you kissed your girlfriend. Sick pigs.
Correct logic:
God clearly spelled out what sexual acts or relationships were sinful. Matt 5 refers to adultery, Ex 20 refers to adultery and coveting a neighbour’s wife, plus all the other OT passages listed by someone else above (bestiality, sister, etc.).
The NT speaks against sexual immorality.
When the Bible uses the term “sexual immorality”, it includes all of God’s ideas of what is sexually immoral; see the list of Bible passages above.
Therefore, I agree with God that the sexual acts or relationships that God forbid are sinful, and those who do them are disgusting perverts. For those who do sexual acts not forbidden by God, I have nothing important to say, other than perhaps warning you of things that lead ME to do things identified by God as sin, such as the buying a bag of cookies example above.
Earl: While I obviously disagree with you on some significant theological points (Magesterium, etc.), I also hope you feel welcome to remain.
I will, of course, continue to disparage your attempts to convince people using human tradition, that should go without saying 🙂 But that is meant to show contempt for your human traditions, not for you as a person 🙂
@Kevin
*”The absence of something is the Bible is not evidence of lack of importance”*…..end quote
Stop twisting my words and taking me out of context…..I’ve never said one time that “the absence of something is not proof of it’s importance.
We’re NOT talking about “importance” here, we’re talking about whether something is a sin or not based on it’s transgression of said LAW….Your futile attempt at a straw man here comes to naught
And quite the contrary that the scriptures DON’T contain everything about modern day life, because it doesn’t need to…….2Ti 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
That verse tells me right there, that it is SUFFICIENT enough to deal with instructions in righteousness, i.e moral matters
And yes, I AM arguing that unless it is mentioned in the LAW, then it is not sin, based upon God’s own definition of what constitutes sin…….Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”
Those who add to the word of God, and make sins that are NOT sins, like the anti-sexual ascetics in here, will find God’s extreme displeasure at the White Throne Judgment
Well I can understand the disconnect between those who go off only Scripture or aren’t under the authority of the Magesterium. My thought to all is to consider offenses against chastity…or even better, to try and live a chaste life to the best of your abilities with the help of the grace of God. Which is better, to try and figure out how far you can go before you sin or what virtue do you need to strive for to grow in a better relationship with God? I know personally for me it is chastity.
Snowy-
I actually never have wanked in my life.
This is an interesting testimony about Catholicism and masturbation. I guess I had no idea it’s the only denomination that is against it. Perhaps that’s the reason why it is easier for me to understand.
http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/masturbation.php
I believe stimulating your sexual organs by yourself to acheive orgasm when the proper and moral use is for uniting with your lawful spouse is sexual immorality.
C’mon man…I kiss my grandmother, nobody considers that incest.
Earl, I haven’t researched any denominations official stances, but there are pastors out there that do not condone masturbation. One argument I’ve heard says even if it wasn’t sinful, it draws you towards other sins. I struggled with homosexuality and masturbation for years until God brought me to a place where I realized that I could not come within anything 2 or 3 degrees removed from things that could arouse my lust. I didn’t know it at the time, but now I think that that night I may have been given a gift of celibacy from Matt 19:11-12. With the exception of a few of times where I was half asleep, it has not overpowered me in nearly a year. The poem at the end of your link is very similar to my experience in that I had to take a different road.
“As a divorced man, I now find VR form more satisfying than real women.”
@earlthomas786
*”I believe stimulating your sexual organs by yourself to acheive orgasm………..is sexual immorality”*…….end quote
Absolute heretical garbage, not based on scripture, but an adding to the word of God, the precepts and teachings of MEN, and the Satanic doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church
I think I’m pretty much done with this thread….It has been hijacked by Devilish, anti-sexual asceticism, right from the harlot of Rome
@ Boxer
You’re pretty upset that I paid GunnerQ a compliment for demolishing AT’s boast with little effort. Jealous much?
“I didn’t know it at the time, but now I think that that night I may have been given a gift of celibacy from Matt 19:11-12.”
Even as a teen, I considered myself to be asexual. Granted, it wasn’t brought about by healthy means – serious depression, rock-bottom self-esteem levels, and that wonderful misinterpretation of Matthew 5 – but considering the market value of Western women, I now consider it a blessing.
necroking48:
August 13, 2017 at 6:31 pm
Absolute heretical garbage, not based on scripture, but an adding to the word of God, the precepts and teachings of MEN, and the Satanic doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church
Pretty ironic that a homosexual* named “necroking” with a hideous AV is accusing others of being “Satanic.”
* By definition, solitary sex is unisex is homosexual. I wouldn’t use the term for someone struggling with masturbation who understands it’s a sin, but it’s fitting for someone who is happily enslaved to it.
@MKT
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!! So now those who masturbate considered homosexuals. ….now I’ve truly heard it all!!
This thread is too funny 😂😂😂😂
sorry typo
My comment should say…”are considered homosexuals
@Earl: C’mon man…I kiss my grandmother, nobody considers that incest.
In my “Faulty logic:” section, I started with an example that I hoped all would disagree with, for the purpose of illustrating the logic, without anyone’s emotions getting in the way of seeing the logic point I was trying to make.
No, I do not actually believe that it is wrong to kiss your grandmother. Just an illustration.
You will note that the “Correct logic” section immediately following uses a parallel structure, but flips the basis/foundation from my words/beliefs to God’s words/beliefs.
Sorry if the “Faulty logic” and “Correct logic” section headers were not clear enough.
necroking said:
“that Augustine wished he was castrated as a young man to relieve himself of the guilt and torture of sexuality…..”
If your eye causes you to sin, cast it out.
“so my question is why does ascetics castigate others for violating ONLY the sexual sins but plays down the other sins of the flesh like idolatry, drunkenness, thieves, wrath, envy etc??”
1) They usually don’t.
2) Even Paul specified sexual sins as the most destructive type.
3) Church of Me types generally don’t try to torture the word of God in a Pharisaical attempt to justify thievery, idolatry, drunkeness, wrathfulness, enviousness, etc.
4) Your attitude and language are appalling and it hurts your cause.
5) I find it hilarious when all these Church of Me Protestants whine about divorce. They can’t stand sleeping in the bed they created. Your god of “Me, Myself, and I” brought forth bad fruit? Shocking…
@earlthomas
“This is an interesting testimony about Catholicism and masturbation. I guess I had no idea it’s the only denomination that is against it. Perhaps that’s the reason why it is easier for me to understand.”
Protestantism was always about crowning the self as God. It should be no surprise that they all have embraces every form of degeneracy that they personally engage in and condemn only that which personally offends or harms them. The honest truth is that Scripture can be made to say whatever a man pleases as long as he is willing to lie to himself. Hence the need for an “official” interpreter. But such requires humility, obedience, and sacrifice. Protestants are largely incapable of any of those three virtues. So they reject the interpreter and set themselves up as the sole authority, thus creating a Church of Me, where every man is his own denomination. See how they talk about their own “pastors” and “churches” and you’ll realize that they only “submit” to that which they already approve.
Some are worse than others, but at the heart of every Protestant is still the undeniable assertion that God must be made in the image of them.
Over 600 comments and still incrementing, this is what I call an interesting comment thread. Since it’s Sunday, let’s see what the feminists are up to shall we: https://youtu.be/tVg_5AS8eDU
That’s right, they’re busy following men into Christian sanctuaries on Sundays to serve them government paperwork to extract money from them for many years while video taping the episode to post on their Facebook page and cackling with laughter truly loving every minute of it.
Too bad the brother didn’t get saved and start living right before he met this brazen feminist. Hindsight is 20/20.
So glad the RCC had no bad past tendencies it’s Skyler. You might want to study a bit more before you play in the big pool. Stick with safe kiddy pools where you don’t get too much challenge.
God’s Word is foremost to many of us, not the words of a tradition that tree to sell people the right to sin and is built on many flawed foundations. This is not the place to argue this, but the RCC has been putting men into the place of God far longer.
This thread is a disaster. I maybe went through 1/3 of the comments, and I wish this would all go away. So much posturing!
First of all, agreement with any of the churchian misandric premises (porn/masturbation is the Greatest Evil, “adultery in the heart” and so on) is just asking for more hate.
First of all, masturbation may be a bad habit – like overeating or drinking too much coffee. But it’a a private matter. There is a large interval between the legal minimum (‘thou shalt not steal’) and the upper bound of perfection and holiness (‘don’t refuse anything you’re asked for, don’t reclaim your debts, if someone takes your robe, give them the cloak as a bonus’).
Freedom from ‘unpure thoughts’ (defined solely by the Feminine Imperative ™) may be a part of the perfection, but is not a legal requirement.
This is just squid ink 😉 And besides – if you’re calling the current churchian leaders ‘windbags’, who nonetheless ‘are right’, then we know where you stand.
It’s not ‘windbags’ – they are frauds, cult leaders, heretics and destroyers of thousands of people’s lives and souls. Pharisee.
As the article pointed out…once the Anglicans accepted contraception (and then the subsequent Prot religions) is where a lot of this started. The Catholic church also has an encyclical that forbids using contraception.
Of course they could probably figure out a way to justify that there’s no specific Scripture verse that forbids using artifical contraception either.
Surely no one would ascribec to a man who, 100 years before Jesus’s birth, had not specifically accepted Jesus as his savior. After all, how could he have done so? OTOH, explicitly refusing to do (when he’d had Jesus’s message clearly explained to him) 100 years AFTER Jesus’s death on the cross, well, that’s a completely different situation, with entirely different consequences.
An analogous situation exists now for marriage for men in the West. Marriage existed and was available as recently as my grandparents’ time. However, it is no longer available to me and other men in the U.S. As the Apostle Paul noted, most men do not have the natural gift of celibacy.
A Catch-22 would thus exist, except that of course morally there can be no such thing.
I came to this understanding only in part from reading an abundance of Red-Pill writings that are in no small part informed by Christianity. My own situation made it clear. I have two small children that NO sacrifice for on my part would be out of line IMO. I have a wife that is faithless, disloyal, and has deadbedded me for years. I would, in this legal climate, undoubtedly effectively cease to be my children’s father in all but genetics. I do not have the gift of celibacy (else,why would I have tried to marry?) I should be able to simply expel my estranged wife from my home, my family, and my concerns (including financial), then being free to remarry. I emphatically am not so able.
What am I to do? Nonfecund sex with an unmarried (but nonvirginal) other woman seems all that is left for me as a Christian man whose home is in a post-marital civilization. (Porn isn’t sufficient long-term, and the sexbots are still laughable IMO.)
Was she this way before marriage? Most specifically the faithless part. A common theme I hear around these parts is that women do a bait and switch once they get married.
Nonetheless…we see what St. Paul warns about Satan starting to tempt husbands because of their wives being rebellious and not performing their marital duty.
“I have a wife that is faithless, disloyal, and has deadbedded me for years.”
If your wife is cheating on you, all you have to do is hire a P.I. to get proof. Men do not a lot of times play very smartly in this regard. You have to present evidence. Women are getting coached how to fabricate evidence by way of instigating physical fights and falsifying legal statements. Men don’t typically do that.
A couple pictures of your wife in the arms of another man will be painful, but it will work wonders in swaying the court to your side, if you want to go down that road. My dad went so far as to threaten my mom with jailtime and exposure to us kids by collecting evidence of her using elicit substances and acting crazy. It’s amazing how fast a woman will give up their heroic fight when all the evidence is stacked against them.
Drunkenness and gluttony doesn’t conflict with the text, now? That’s a novel interpretation, I must say.
From Galatians Ch. 5:
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
If such things were private matters, they wouldn’t appear in print. They’re clearly proscribed. As an aside, so is quarreling to the extent that you accuse your friends of nonsense (I’ve seen good men depicted in this thread as Satanists and false prophets and such, simply because they disagreed – it has been a veritable ragefest of SirHamster proportions, in the margins.) Not only is that described as sinful, it also makes you guys look sorta dopey, and does nothing to convince your opponents of the rightness of your arguments.
Regards,
Boxer
More men need to do exactly this. Women get spoiled by the idea that they can do anything with impunity. When and if they’re ever called to account, they just start blubbering, sure in the knowledge that a few tears will sway the magistrate.
If your wife is divorcing you, don’t be the “nice guy.” Not only will you lose large, she won’t even respect you for it. Stand up for yourself and tell the truth.
Boxer
Witnessing the antics of the “Christian Wanker Pride” parade in this thread is, I have to say, kind of a new experience for me — even though I grew up in the 80’s with Dr. Ruth on MTV, and my life hasn’t exactly been sheltered.
Not too surprising I guess, given modernity’s attitude that everyone should not only be empowered to do whatever they want with their genitals, and publicly boast about it, but that any disapproval of their incontinent degeneracy is itself evil.
Still, it is quite something to actually see. Christian Wankers for Jesus.
@Skyler
“The honest truth is that Scripture can be made to say whatever a man pleases as long as he is willing to lie to himself. Hence the need for an “official” interpreter. But such requires humility, obedience, and sacrifice.”
Let me fix this for you.
The honest truth is that Scripture can be made to say whatever a man pleases as long as he is willing to lie to himself. Hence the need to Read and Pray Earnestly. But such requires humility, obedience, and sacrifice. No official interpreter needed.
Jesus did away with the need for the Levites. Not even the Bible is actually needed once we know God. Earnest prayer is honestly enough. Yes we have the choice of lying to ourselves. We can also be lied to by an “official interpreter” Protestant, RCC or otherwise. There are no shortage of false teachers. I personally believe that honest discussion (like this blog, but better if in MeatSpace) is better at sharpening our understanding that listening to a lecture about the “official interpretation.” It does not make the Church of Self, It is the direct heirarchy. Man is the head of woman, Christ is the head of man, God is the head of Christ. Where does anyone see church, denomination, pastor or clergy in this?
The Crusades are a dire warning against the “official interpreters”
NOTE:
“Not even the Bible is actually needed once we know God.” Please don’t interpret this as me saying the Bible is irrelevant, just that its not ESSENTIAL to my faith. Christians were around before the bible and if I ended up somewhere that there were NO BIBLES, I would still have a direct line of communication through prayer for God to guide me and tell me his will.
Hose_B:
In other words, ‘patriarchy lite’.
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/why-patriarchy-lite-is-just-a-stepping-stone-to-feminism/
Zippy:
August 14, 2017 at 9:53 am
“Witnessing the antics of the “Christian Wanker Pride” parade in this thread is, I have to say, kind of a new experience for me — even though I grew up in the 80’s with Dr. Ruth on MTV, and my life hasn’t exactly been sheltered.
Not too surprising I guess, given modernity’s attitude that everyone should not only be empowered to do whatever they want with their genitals, and publicly boast about it, but that any disapproval of their incontinent degeneracy is itself evil.
Still, it is quite something to actually see. Christian Wankers for Jesus.”
Very well put. Like I said, the whoring/porn fapping crowd is the other side of the coin, for both the “Christian” feminists and the various perverts (LGQBT, etc.). Prior to the last century and the Sexual Revolution, no one thought this way outside a few heretics and cults. AT has built his whole theology around his porn habits and influences–look at the pics on his blog.
When artificial contraception was introduced and a very real separation of procreation and sex occurred (and then eventually sex and marriage)…this is the type of thinking we get.
@Zippy
“in other words Patriarchy Lite”
No sir. 1Corinthians 11:2-3 2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.
Nowhere in scripture do I see “Patriarchy” prescribed in the form you present. Patriarchy isn’t civil government. And I will kiss no humans ring.
Hose_B:
Then welcome to the world you have created.
So care to explain what Jesus meant by this:
So Pilate said to Him, “Do You refuse to speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You and authority to crucify You?” Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me unless it were given to you from above….
John 19:10-11
Guy, Dalrock has a truce going between Protestants and Catholics. Let’s not violate it.
Zippy, which of these definitions do you use for the term “Patriarchy” and how does this in any way affect the need for an “official interpreter”?
If you mean the first definition “father is the head of the family” then I agree with Patriarchy. Still means don’t need to kiss rings. Nor do I pray to the Virgin Mary. Still have no clue what you mean by patriarchy lite, even after reading your post. I am not RCC, so I don’t understand your background. Then again, Jesus wasn’t RCC either.
pa·tri·arch·y
ˈpātrēˌärkē/Submit
noun
a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.
@GunnerQ
Understood.
@Earl,
Patriarchy isn’t civil government. And I will kiss no humans ring.
So care to explain what Jesus meant by this:
So Pilate said to Him, “Do You refuse to speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You and authority to crucify You?” Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me unless it were given to you from above….
We do not live in a patriarchy. I personally live under a democracy. You are referencing a CIVIL GOVERNMENT, not my faith. The civil government is not in my direct line to Christ any more than my slave master would be if I were a slave.
“Gunner Q says:
August 14, 2017 at 10:42 am
“Guy, Dalrock has a truce going between Protestants and Catholics. Let’s not violate it.”
Most Protestants with a multi-century history and codified teachings (confessions, creeds) can find common ground with Zippy here. This includes conservative (non-mainline) Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans and even Baptists.
None of those traditions accept totally novel, Scripture-twisting beliefs, especially in the area of sexual ethics.
That doesn’t answer the question as to what Jesus meant with that statement.
How do the RCs and Orthodox deal with Matthew 5:31-32?
“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
That seems to allow a man to divorce a wife for “sexual immorality”, usually adultery.
What say the Catholics and Orthodox, since we hear from them that only death validly ends a sacramental marriage?
Hose_B:
The third definition is the best.
The gist of my post is that a ‘patriarchy lite’ which is just liberalism for men (men are free and equal citizens of the polity) but not for women (who are subject to the authority of their husbands and fathers) is unstable and leads to — in fact historically actually did lead to — feminism.
So this idea that when it comes to authority there is just you and then Christ over you — His disembodied voice in your mind always seems to affirm your own opinions, and not just when it comes to interpreting Scripture, doesn’t it? — this idea that you are subject directly to Christ with no other hierarchy of human authority over you just leads right back to feminism and the destruction of patriarchy.
thedeti:
What the passage actually means, and was interpreted to mean for 1500 years before Luther, is that a couple who are shacking up but not validly married should either separate or marry sacramentally. It isn’t that sexual immorality permits divorce: it is that sexual immorality doesn’t constitute marriage.
“Except for fornication” means “unless you are just shacking up and aren’t married”.
To be more precise on “except for fornication”:
It isn’t that sexual immorality on the part of one partner can end a valid marriage. It is that separating from the person you are shacking up with doesn’t constitute the end of a valid marriage.
Interpreting that specific passage as a “get out of marriage if she cheats” card may be an interpretation made in good faith, but not all good faith interpretations are true and correct. And the one that you find convenient rather than convicting happens to be the wrong one, which probably shouldn’t surprise anyone given the overall tenor of the passage and other passages which don’t include the qualification.
ZIppy:
But Christ is talking about a man married to a woman.
“But I tell you that anyone who DIVORCES HIS WIFE, except for sexual immorality,”
They’re married. They’re not shacking up. They’re not fornicating with each other. They’re married.
@Earl That doesn’t answer the question as to what Jesus meant with that statement.
It means the same as when he tells slaves to obey their masters. Its the same as Joseph being in submission to Pharoah. God put Pharoah in power (and used him to expand his Glory) But that doesn’t mean that they are between Christ and I.
@Zippy
His disembodied voice in your mind always seems to affirm your own opinions, and not just when it comes to interpreting Scripture, doesn’t it?
This is a human fallibility that I addressed earlier. EARNEST prayer. Having Iron around to help sharpen you is helpful at holding you accountable, but a Go Between isn’t needed. and it has nothing to do with Civil authorities. We are called to obey the civil laws of the land that we are in WHILE holding to our moral laws as a follower of Christ. However, as a follower of Christ living in a country that decides that Buddhism or Wicca or Mormonism is the “Official Religion” I am not to obey. I am to obey Christ. I don’t need to cause a rebellion, I just need to follow the example of Daniel.
I want to read the catechism on Matt. 5:31-32.
Although it is interesting the fornicating partner is still referred to as a wife…even if it isn’t a valid marriage because of the lack of an outward declaration. Might be a good indicator as to why women with a N >0 are a higher divorce risk.
Earl:
If they’re shacking up and therefore fornicating, why does Christ then call the woman a “wife” and the separation a “divorce”?
What makes you think God puts a Pharoah in power, but doesn’t put a particular civil government in power? Christ was willing to submit to the particular flawed government in His time…what makes you think you don’t have to.
@thedeti @Zippy
“Except for fornication” means “unless you are just shacking up and aren’t married”.
That’s a version I hadn’t heard before. I have heard it said that “except for Pornea (sexual immorality)” would mean your married to your close relative or that they were in some way ineligible for marriage, or that the husband was deceived about her.
These certainly seem likely as NONE of the other books give the exception clause. Either way, Jesus makes it clear that Divorce is NOT GODS PLAN. intentionally expanding the definition of pornea to justify a divorce is going in the wrong direction.
Note. I understand that there are different beliefs here about what pornea means and I don’t mean to get into a debate on the definition
from strongs πορνεία porneía, por-ni’-ah; from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:—fornication.
This is my own interpretation so take it with a grain of salt…but probably because they’ve done the marital act (PiV) but never did any outward declaration of the marriage (giving the father shekels, civil or church marriage). If I’m reading Zippy correctly…a lawful marriage needs both.
thedeti:
A lot gets lost in translation over thousands of years, multiple intermediate languages, and millennia of commentary. That is part of why it is foolish to think that anyone can just pick up an English Bible and figure it all out on his own, however prayerful and holy and EARNEST he may have convinced himself that he is.
But lets just suppose that Christ directly authorized a man to legally separate from (divorce) his wife for cheating. (The Church permits this in certain circumstances too: legal separation is permissible when there is real danger to life and limb, for example. You can go to the bishop to get this permission, and other help presumably).
Nowhere in the Scriptures do you find Christ granting license for a divorced man or woman to marry someone else while a valid spouse lives.
(Yes, Pauline privilege, where an unbaptized spouse abandons a baptized spouse — we discussed that already upthread).
@Earl
What makes you think God puts a Pharoah in power, but doesn’t put a particular civil government in power? Christ was willing to submit to the particular flawed government in His time…what makes you think you don’t have to.
I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that the civil authority God put in power doesn’t have anything to do with my chain of authority with regards to faith. Just as Israel being enslaved in Egypt did not call for them to convert to the Pharoahs faith.
Thanks but none of this answers the question:
“If they’re shacking up and therefore fornicating, why does Christ then call the woman a “wife” and the separation a “divorce”?”
You cannot divorce a woman you’re not married to. You can shack up with a woman you’re not married to; but you cant’ divorce her. That woman you’re shacking up with isn’t a wife, either.
Words mean things. He used the words “divorce” and “wife”. He could have said “separate from” or “kick out” the “woman you’re shacking up with/fornicating with and not married to.” He didn’t.
Where’s the catechism on this?
Just as Israel being enslaved in Egypt did not call for them to convert to the Pharoahs faith.
Further thought: The Isrealites would have been wrong to rebel and leave if God had not TOLD them to go” And he only did that because of the Pharoah oppressing them beyond what God would allow. Gods common punishment to the Isrealites was to make them slaves to opposing nations for a time, then to deliver them when they had turned to him again.
earl:
Things are complicated when the unbaptized are involved, so I won’t get into that here. All marriages in which both spouses have ever been baptized are sacramental marriages, to which the New Testament applies.
A valid marriage between baptized Christians requires the mutual consent of the couple to marriage: a permanent sexually exclusive faithful union of one man and one woman open to the generation of new life. It also requires them to be eligible to marry: not close blood relatives, not already married (note: it doesn’t matter whether or not one has a legal grant of divorce), etc. And it requires that they follow proper form when contracting marriage (though Protestants are dispensed from this requirement, so their marriages are generally also valid sacramental marriages unless they are former Catholics, in which case they probably aren’t valid: Catholics need explicit dispensation from proper form, and once a Catholic always a Catholic).
Now, a valid sacramental marriage has to be consummated in order to become indissoluble. There is what is called the Petrine Privilege where the Pope (and only the Pope) can dissolve a sacramental marriage as long as it has never been consummated under certain conditions.
But consummated sacramental marriages are indissoluble. No power on Earth can unmake a consummated sacramental marriage, even if the couple become civilly/legally separated (divorced).
thedeti:
“Divorce” implying the actual end of a marriage isn’t even a meaningful concept when we are talking about valid, consummated sacramental marriages. Divorce just means legal separation: it doesn’t confer a license to sacramentally marry someone else, which is impossible in principle for someone who is already sacramentally married to a living spouse.
I mean, you might not agree with all of that. But it has been (at least formally) the doctrine of the Catholic Church since time immemorial.
Zippy is partially correct. The Church has permitted two explanations for the Matthean Exception:
1. The verse refers to an invalid marriage or concubinage (Jesus is making a distinction between this and Christian marriage).
2. Many early Church fathers e.g. Augustine took the exception to refer to the put away part but not remarry part. A husband can put away a cheating wife but cannot remarry. While this seems like a forced reading in KJV, the Bible wasn’t written in English and Jesus didn’t speak in Engish – you are reading a translation of a translation.
@ deti…
Not sure if it answers the specific question, but this is what the Catechism says about divorce:
“The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.
Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”
and then later
‘In a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy.
The expression “free union” is fallacious: what can “union” mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or in the future?
The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments. All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. the sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.
Some today claim a “right to a trial marriage” where there is an intention of getting married later. However firm the purpose of those who engage in premature sexual relations may be, “the fact is that such liaisons can scarcely ensure mutual sincerity and fidelity in a relationship between a man and a woman, nor, especially, can they protect it from inconstancy of desires or whim.” Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate “trial marriages.” It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.’
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P87.HTM
The translation is also disputed by some scholars (not just Catholic scholars) who contend that “except for” should be translated as “notwithstanding” although this is a minority view among modern scholars.
Thanks, zip, but i’ll just go find the catechism. That’s best for the simple minded like me.
thedeti:
If you want to read the JPII catechism you can just Google “divorce catechism”. Catholics don’t really play “Scripture gotcha”. That is a Protestant thing, and given the Wankers for Jesus movement in this very thread I can’t help feeling a little smug about it, to my own discredit.
But all I am doing is restating the Catholic position, as I understand it.
Yeah, thanks guys. I’ll keep my original decision to not get married. Whether feminist or Catholic, it’s just a sorry excuse of a contract.
Allow?
Jesus is clarifying that divorce is adultery, even when correctly following the OT law’s divorce procedure. He is not talking about when to divorce, but teaching what is holy (and what is not).
Every divorce makes the wife a victim of adultery, EXCEPT for when there was already sexual immorality preceding the divorce. In the case of sexual immorality, either husband or wife has done something to adulterate the marriage, and the other one is already the victim of adultery, rather than becoming a victim at divorce. It should go without saying that adultery is unholy.
But Jesus explains elsewhere that man should not separate what God has joined together. Divorce is never right, but men do it out of the hardness of hearts. This lines up with what Catholics/Orthodox teach, though I have heard both have allowances in practice because our hearts are hard.
Divorce exceptions have more to do with men trying to justify themselves, rather than aligning with what God desires.
Deep Strength had a good series on this:
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/on-divorce/
I really just want to understand it without all the side snark and subtle digs and innuendo.
Raised Baptist with the associated prejudice against Catholicism, but you have a solid point against the decentralized part of the church.
Dear Zippy:
The word ‘wife’ means someone the subject is married to, not whatever woman he is shacking up with exclusive of the bonds of wedlock. Likewise, ‘another’ means that the subject was already married to the object, and is now replacing her.
Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
If you’re starting the Church of Zippy, that’s cool; but you should write your own book. This is a very clear and unambiguous statement. It’s mutually exclusive of your interpretation.
Best,
Boxer
“This lines up with what Catholics/Orthodox teach, though I have heard both have allowances in practice because our hearts are hard.”
No, Catholics teach no divorce, hardness of the heart providing no exception. Catholic canon law experts can make a declaration of nullity – essentially a legal declaration that no valid marriage took place. When done with prayerful consideration, this provides moral certitude not absolute certitude. The status of an individual’s marriage is not part of the sacred deposit of faith that Christ left for us and cannot be determined except with “actionable” certitude.
The Eastern Orthodox have a strange, pastoral exception that allows one to live in a constant state of penance during the second and third “marriage.” Scott can explain this better than I can I’m sure.
If I have misstated the Catholic position, Zippy will correct me.
Dear Bruce:
Thanks for this. I can see where Zippy is coming from in context.
Proposition 2 is particularly interesting, because it’s supported by the word order of the verse in the KJV. I’ve never thought of it that way, but it makes intuitive sense.
Best,
Boxer
Zippy, SirHamster:
Yeah this whole “masturbation is a good thing” vibe is weird.
As a kid growing up, masturbation was never presented as a “good”. It was just a “necessary evil” in that when you don’t have a sex partner or a sexual outlet, it’s something that (especially) teenage boys and young men do to take the edge off the deprivation, because there’s nothing else that can be done – you can’t rape a woman, you can’t force a woman to have sex with you, and sex isn’t readily available to most men. You don’t do it because it’s good or makes you happy; you do it because you have to take the edge off the drive and there’s no other readily available way to quiet it down. And most men aren’t taught to “contain” or to master (heh) the extremely strong sex drive or to pray about it or seek other outlets. Most of them are just guilted about it in the Church.
@thedeti: I empathize: I am often in the same boat.
My understanding of the passage, for what it’s worth, is the male is responsible for the field he plows and sows; the responsibility rests on the male for the duration of his life unless he catches someone else sowing the field — even then he may still be held responsible for the subsequent condition of the field.
oh, and there’s another interesting wrinkle.
while it’s clear in the OT that multiple wives is NOT a sin ( God gave Saul’s wives to David, plus more wives, and would have given him more had David asked ) … for the NT Christian, *only* the husband of a single wife is permitted to be an Elder / Bishop of the Church. so the criteria for Church leadership exclude all celibate men from the Priesthood just as much as they exclude Artisanal ( assuming he has implemented what he advocates ) from the Priesthood … just for opposite reasons.
so, while it’s important to address the issues AT brings up, he can never be considered an ‘authority’ on the Scripture.
Referring to the original posting and asking again:
has Artisinal Toad and any of his groupies proved the point?
Do we need to take a poll?
So far there’s been one, maybe two, answers.
It’s even more weird because the moral rationalization of doing it is they are burning with passion, there are no options to marry out there, and any woman you do end up marry is going to divorce you or stop having sex with you anyway.
@Anon Reader
Much of the challenge is there is no one single argument. Even just limiting it to AT, it is as I noted in reply to one commenter in the beginning of the thread. AT makes an outlandish claim, and this is refuted. Then AT make two more outlandish claims. There is no end to this. I haven’t read all
600+700+ replies in the thread, but here is my summary from memory:1) AT claimed that only items spelled out in the Law can be sins, and anyone who claims otherwise (including God) is sinning. He offered two passages from Romans supporting this claim. I pointed out that the passages in question actually prove the opposite. See also my follow up clarification here.
2) AT claims that widows are allowed to have sex outside of wedlock, so long as they don’t enjoy it. No Scripture is offered for this wild claim.
3) AT claimed that sex creates marriage. Several commenters thoroughly debunked this with examples from the OT.
What else am I missing?
Much of the challenge is there is no one single argument.
Yes. Portable goalposts are very handy in some games. I privately noted this about A. Toad and his groupies some time ago.
What else am I missing?
Namecalling, logical fallacies, bragging about dangerously dangerous wives, the usual Prot vs. RCC festivies, hair splitting and attempts to AMOG. In other words, “not much”.
I was just waving my virtual hand in the air to call the virtual vote. But a motion to adjourn is always in order…
It’s probably easier to just go with that statement than to try and find the minuscule loopholes where a marriage didn’t actually happen. Which is why if I ever do marry…it’s going to be to a single baptized Catholic woman of our own free will and not close blood relative. Takes all the guesswork out.
@Zippy
This is dumb, and a fantasy. Women had places within the hierarchy under what you call “patriarchy lite”. Women ran households commanding children and servants, ran businesses, and held property to do with as they saw fit.
I’ll just note that kissing the hand is something that some men say other men are supposed to do to kings, clergy, and women. Since that was in the past, I guess we have to say that that act of kissing the hand is unstable and leads to–in fact historically actually did lead to–feminism.
Right, I said that’s what they teach. Nullified marriages are abused by American Catholics as divorce in practice. That practice despite the teaching reflects the state of hardened hearts.
Good teaching with bad practice is still a step up from free-for-all no-fault divorce practiced in non-Catholic churches with bad teaching, but “I’m doing it less wrong” is nothing to brag about.
That was very careless of me – I should have written “that’s what the Church (magisterium) teaches”
Cane Caldo:
What is dumb and a fantasy? That political liberalism was in fact the major driver of womens’ suffrage and feminism?
Boxer:
I’ll consider your comment directed to me answered by proxy, then, unless there is something important you believe has not been addressed.
thedeti:
Right. This is part what the long tradition of asceticism in the Church, now all but completely abandoned by modern Christians, was about.
People who drive others to sin by creating conditions of temptation — pornographers, women who postpone marriage to sleep around and gain feminist merit badges, wives who fail to satisfy the maririage debt, etc. — have been traditionally considered guilty of the sin of scandal (you can look this up in the catechism too). To modern ears ‘scandal’ sounds like something minor, but traditionally it is a very serious sin indeed (Matthew 18:6).
By the same token, Christians who strengthen themselves through ascetic practices become much less subject to scandal. This doesn’t lessen the offense of those guilty of scandal, but of course we aren’t responsible for the behaviors other people choose. We are responsible for the behaviors we choose.
So masturbation is indeed a serious sin against chastity, and like all sinful behaviors it enslaves those who fail to seek the help of Christ’s grace through the sacraments and sacred traditions of the Church, including whatever ascetic practices a particular person needs in order to gain control of her (or his) incontinence.
@SirHamster – “It does not say he is joined to an eligible virgin/woman.”
I’ve already laid out the case that Genesis 2, Luke 10, and 1 Cor 6 show that it is not restricted to just a virgin woman, but all men and women regardless of virginity. See Toad’s concise argument. While Toad has claimed issues of eligibility, the language does not support a virgin/non-virgin distinction. The one-flesh joining applies to all sex.
“But the language here is that he is joined to his wife…Thus, the wife has the status of wife before any sexual union of one flesh occurs.”
In 1 Cor 6, Paul talks of joining with a prostitute and cites Genesis 2:24. Yet, there is no marriage to the prostitute: she is not the wife of the man. Yet, they still become one flesh. How can Genesis 2:24 apply to prostitution if there is no [statutory] marriage?
I’ve never disagreed that statutory marriage is an independent act from one-flesh joining. I’ve stated above that a woman can can be wife, a one-flesh joined ex-virgin, or both. But it is the one-flesh joining that is singled out as most important. The distinction between initiation (a legal act) and consummation (a physical and spiritual act) is important from a moral standpoint. That’s why Jesus cited the one-flesh joining as the primary reason that divorce is always wrong. God does care about illicit sex with a betrothed woman (see below), but that’s not the underlying primary principle described in Genesis 2:24.
“You can also see this concept in action in the OT law. GunnerQ in a recent post notes that in Deuteronomy law a pledged virgin who is violated has the status of a wife for the purpose of punishing the man involved.”
GunnerQ’s citations from scripture continue to be incredibly helpful to this discussion. Matt. 1:18-19 calls a betrothed woman a wife. It’s a standard statutory marriage without a one-flesh joining. Deut. 22:23-24 is also about betrothal. It gives the death penalty of adultery for one-flesh joining with another man’s pledged wife. But the distinction between a pledged wife and a full wife is still being made. The only reason to make this distinction is because there is a distinction. There would be no need for this regulation if adultery was commonly understood, based on Genesis 2, to include extra-marital sex during the betrothal period.
There are many accepted legal forms of marriage (justice-of-the-peace, church weddings, betrothal, etc.) but everyone finds sexless marriages distasteful. The assumption in a betrothal is that the marriage will result in a one-flesh joining, so for that reason it is sacred.
@Minesweeper – “if PIV =marriage then explain…”
While Toad already answered your objections, I would add that not all sex results in [statutory] marriage, including incest, adultery, and prostitution. Marriage is statutory, physical, and spiritual. When I say PIV=marriage, I mean that this always creates an expectation of (full) marriage because it is a one-flesh joining (see my other comment). Having sex with someone who is forbidden (e.g. adultery) creates a forbidden expectation of marriage, which is why it is wrong.
Of course if masturbation is just a minor nothing of a sin, then all of the scandal that gives rise to it is also not really a big deal.
Off topic, but speaking of inconsistencies (like we see in the church re: male/female porn, divorce, etc.). I actually saw this in a FB post for an Anglican group:
“I have pondered for many hours my appropriate response to terrorism and racism especially as displayed in Charlottesville recently. In short, anyone who does not condemn, without qualification, the actions of white supremacists is not welcome to receive Holy Communion at the altar I preside over.”
Others asked if they equally condemned the violent Antifa protestors who, unlike the white nationalists, didn’t have a permit and almost always start the violence. A lot of hem hawing and tap dancing, but the priest didn’t modify his statement. Someone also responded:
“And Jesus said, ‘When you do your virtue-signaling, do not be like the millennials and hipsters, for they virtue signal as to get ‘like’ votes on facebook. Rather, when you virtue signal, log on to your secret account and your father Zuckerberg, who sees what is done in secret, will reward your account.'”
Strange times we live in.
Derek Ramsey:
That is also the Catholic understanding (though the agreement also has a spiritual dimension). A contracted marriage is valid once the mutual free agreement between spouses is made, but it doesn’t become indissoluble-under-all-conditions until it is consummated.
That is where the understandings diverge though. Once married and consummated a Christian marriage does not ever cease to exist for any reason whatsoever without the death of one spouse. And no second or additional marriage can be validly contracted once someone is already married. Civil divorce and separation of household is possible in certain cases, but contracting a new or additional marriage is not. The pretense of a second wife or what have you is (among baptized Christians) just a pretense: no more real than a guy marrying another guy. The play acting of modern people living out their fantasy worlds doesn’t compel God, and Christian marriage is “what God has joined”.
And no deliberate completed sexual acts of any kind are licit outside of marriage.
Funny how moral relativism works.
Someone should just flat out ask him if he supports what anti-fascism stands for.
@ Derek
In referencing Genesis, Paul re-establishes what sex is designed for, the marriage bed. Prostitution also involves sex, but is a perversion of sex’s true purpose.
Sex is a powerful physical and spiritual joining between man and woman, and Paul is correcting a wrong idea that prostitutes are fine because all things are allowed and because sex is a natural appetite.
It is not clear to me that initiation/consummation is separated along the legal and physical+spiritual lines you describe here.
Taking our modern practice, I think the spoken “I do” during the exchange of vows is an act of will that is spiritual, not merely legal. There is definitely a spiritual component/effect to the sex, but not exclusively so.
I disagree. It would be natural to think there is a distinction between a “pledged” wife and a “full” wife, because one experienced “one flesh” and the other has not. But as the punishment is the same, they are considered the same from the moral/legal perspective. There is no distinction made between “promised” and “actual”, which says something about the power of promise in God’s frame.
It also makes sense when we consider that the individuals were likely to be part of the same community – “You knew she was Joshua’s fiance, pledged to spend her life with him, when you chose to seduce and sleep with her.” There is a serious injury here that is not present when the girl is not pledged; a little later, the Mosaic law says the man is to have a make-up marriage in the un-pledged case.
Expanding on the concept of promised and actual – why would a promise of marriage supercede the one-flesh joining of a man and a virgin who was pledged to another?
Because the promise is spiritual and the spirit is greater than the flesh.
Thus the fleshly act adulterates the existing (promised) marriage. The remedy then is to cut off the adulterers from the community with death. That death is physical and of the flesh, and is to prevent what is far worse – spiritual death.
Thanks again Zippy.
I don’t think getting an annulment would add much in my life, so I am highly unlikely to pursue that, but it is interesting to know.
I expect the foundation to be valid as well Boxer, at least for really long screeds. Why waste time reading through a long proof that has faulty starting assumptions?
I suppose some would say that of my posts at times though….
Cane,
Very true. The OT and NT complement each other, but not in the way many suppose.
It is also important to keep in mind that the whole point of The Law was not for anyone to keep it, but to show no one could keep it and thus the need for a Savior.
Dale,
You did seem like the same Dale, though with a differing view in some ways. Adding an initial can be helpful, even if it is made up (“DaleX”).
Y’all are hilarious.
All this goes back to the early church, when the patristic “fathers” threw out the Biblical standards of sexual morality and replaced them with a combination of Pagan belief, Stoic philosophy and Roman law. The Bible contains a double-standard of sexual morality, one for men and one for women. But about 1500 years ago men like Augustine, Gregory and Jerome declared that sexual pleasure was evil and even within marriage sex was something of a sin.
The “new” standard of sexual morality they introduced was simple and, they claimed, applied equally to both men and women: Sex is bad, don’t do it. Any form of sexual pleasure was sinful, evil wickedness. They claimed that even within marriage sex was a venal sin unless it was done only for the purpose of procreation, so obviously it was a mortal sin outside marriage. And having more than one wife? Obviously there’d be a lot of sex going on, so that had to be evil and they banned it. They banned masturbation and even banned blowjobs as sinful wickedness.
But… interestingly enough, about the time the church was teaching this stuff, it was also the largest owner of brothels in Europe. And the girls that worked in those brothels? They had a special dispensation from their Bishop to engage in all those “forbidden” sexual practices. For an extra fee, of course. So, while the church was actively teaching that the only acceptable sex was within marriage, in the missionary position, with the minimal amount of clothing removed, done as fast as possible and with the minimum amount of pleasure…. they owned the red-light district and the working girls had permission from the church to do all the things the wives were told they would go to hell for. Obviously they could have granted those special dispensations to the wives instead of the whores, but the income from the brothels was significant.
I could go on and on because the historical record of the church really is that fascinating, but let’s return to the present status of watching this thread devolve into a shaming argument about masturbation. It’s mind-boggling.
The question was asked: does marriage cause sexual immorality? I answered yes, modern marriage does cause sexual immorality because the modern church refuses to recognize the Biblical standard of when marriage begins.
Nobody wants to touch that so the discussion turns to fapping? Wow.
Why was woman created? Because it was not good for man to be alone and God decided to create a helper for him. A helper? To help him do what? Accomplish his mission. What was the mission that God gave to man? To be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it. To take dominion over it. Which means that the role of women is to be a wife and mother under the authority of her husband. Because that’s how God designed it in the beginning.
When is the woman married? When she first has sexual intercourse, because that act of penetration is what marries her. Is her consent required? No, it isn’t, which is demonstrated by Deut. 22:28-29. A virgin can be raped into marriage. And, as Exodus 22:17 demonstrates, a virgin can choose to be married and her father can forbid the marriage she chose and she isn’t married. In other words, the virgin has no agency. In Exodus 21 we see the father can sell his daughter to be a man’s concubine, or the wife of his son, or the wife of one of his slaves. In Deuteronomy 21, we see that a woman can be captured in battle and be forced to be a man’s wife. And there is nothing in there about consent because the virgins consent is not required in order for a marriage to occur. In 1st Corinthians 7 we see Paul acknowledging that the father of the virgin can decide she should marry, or he can decide that she cannot marry. Consent? There isn’t any because the virgin has no agency and nothing has changed that.
Which brings us back to the fact that the virgin is married when she first has sex… whether she knows it or not. Or, to put it a bit differently, according to God’s design and standard, the eligible virgin is married when she first has sex. And what is the crime of adultery? Adultery is when a married woman has sex with a man who is not her husband.
Does it matter that the current culture claims she isn’t married until there’s a party with a dress and she publicly consents to marriage? Not according to what the Bible says. There is an exception to the sex makes the virgin married… because if she is in her youth living in her fathers house, her father has the authority to forbid that marriage and if he does, she isn’t married. In fact, she was never married. How can this be? She isn’t married because her father forbid her agreement to marry (Numbers 30:5) and by forbidding her agreement after the fact, the man is not eligible to marry her. Thus, because he was ineligible to marry her, the sex didn’t make her married.
Such is the authority of the father.
Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are the judgments that deal with the intersection of the Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24) which says the eligible virgin is married when she first has sex, and the Law of Vows (Numbers 30) which says the father has the authority to forbid any agreement or vow his daughter makes while she is in her youth and living in his house. So, in Exodus 22:16, she agreed to have sex (to marry the man) but the father does not object to the marriage and the man is married to her and must pay the bride price. In verse 17, the father forbids the agreement his daughter made, refusing to give his daughter to that man in marriage, but he still has to pay the price for the woman who is now no longer a virgin. And in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the virgin made no agreement her father can forbid, so if they are discovered (there are witnesses to the fact she made no agreement) they are married. If they are not discovered, the the issue devolves to the authority of the father and he can decide how to handle it.
Her agreement does not need to be verbal and she doesn’t even need to know she was agreeing to marry. It could be as simple as her lifting her ass so her panties could be pulled off, she agreed to it. But the father has the authority to forbid her agreement to marry as long as she’s in her youth, living in his house. Absent the father’s authority to forbid the marriage, once the virgin is married she stays married until her husband dies (Romans 7:2-3) or until her unbelieving husband divorces her for her adultery (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:9) or until her unbelieving husband refuses to live with her (1 Cor. 7:15). That’s it, and no-where in the Bible is the woman given the authority to divorce her husband for any reason.
So, looking around at the so-called “married couples” in the modern church, the question is simple. Did that man get that woman’s virginity? If the answer is no, then in all likelihood they are living in adultery. How should they deal with it?
1. Did she give her virginity to a man when she was in her youth, living in her father’s house? If so, on the day her father learns of her agreement to marry he can forbid it. There is no time limit on that, so in the day he hears of it, he can forbid it, even he does not hear of it until years later. Seven words: “I forbid you to marry [His Name].” Done, as far as God is concerned, she is not and was never married to that man.
2. Assuming that her husband is not a Christian and assuming that she has in fact had sex with at least one other man, she can get a certificate of divorce from him for her adultery and she is no longer married to him. Does it matter that he has no idea he’s married to her? No. Write “I divorce you for your adultery” and that meets the requirement of Deuteronomy 24:1, she is no longer married to any man.
3. Assuming that her husband is not a Christian, if he refuses to live with her as her husband she is free.
4. According to the litmus test of Christianity in 1st John 2, if the man refuses to live with her as her husband he is refusing to obey the Lord’s commands (1st Peter 3:7 commands husbands to live with their wives) and therefore proves he isn’t a Christian and she’s free because he refuses to live with her.
5. The adulterous couple can separate. She is a married woman who is separated from her husbnd and she is to be chaste or be reconciled to her husband.
And we all know that NOBODY wants to deal with this can of worms.
Except for God. Because God hates sin.
And who caused this problem in the first place? All the Christian leaders and teachers who taught that sex does not make you married. This is the way of Balaam, the stumbing block that was placed within the church by the Nicolaitans. Teach the girls and boys that sex doesn’t make you married and it’s just sinful “premarital sex” that can be forgiven and walked away from. Teach them that consent, a dress and a party is what makes them married, any sex prior to the party is something they can “lay on the alter” and have it all forgiven.
And should it come as any surprise when we see that the more often a woman commits adultery prior to her “official” adulterous union known as a marriage, the more likely it is that union will fall apart?
God is not mocked.
But… wait… all this talk about virgins, what about the women who are not virgins but not married? There are a few of them, mostly widows. Well, according to Numbers 30:9 and 1 Cor. 7:39, they are not married until they choose to be married because they have the freedom to choose who they will be married to. Meaning, they can’t get raped into marriage the way a virgin can. Which means they must agree to marry before the sex makes them married… because sex alone will not marry the non-virgin…. and… wait for it…
That’s the “loophole” that allows prostitutes. Righteous prostitutes who are not in sin when they spread their legs for paying customers.
That makes modern churchians scream in outrage, but the fact is, God knew all about women when He gave His Law, and He chose not to forbid ordinary payment-for-sex prostitution. He did choose to ban cult prostitutes, which points to the fact He didn’t have anything to say about ordinary non-idolatry prostitutes. And the Lord could easily have had one of the Apostles state a prohibition on Christian women working as whores, but He did not, which means He chose not to.
There is nothing in Scripture that forbids a man from having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry. Because sex is how marriage begins. The only exception to that is Christian men are forbidden to have sex with prostitutes. And the virgin’s consent is not required for her to be married, which means it doesn’t matter whether or not she knows she’s getting married when she gives her virginity away. Throws it away might be more accurate. The current church doctrine is what causes the sexual immorality associated with marriage and all you have to do to prove that is ask the “married” man one question:
Did he get her virginity?
If he did, he’s actually married to the woman he had a party with.
If not, he isn’t, because she married some other man when she gave him her virginity… so she was already a married woman when they had their party. It was a fraud and the vows are meaningless. Because she was already married to another man. The man she is with is not her husband and she is an adulteress. He is committing adultery with her every time they have sex.
The church is filled with people who think they’re married but are actually living in adultery?
Yes.
There are two parts to arc of this story that are fascinating.
First, if this issue became widely known, I’m guessing a huge number of women currently living in adultery would jump all over the chance to ditch the man they think they’re married to. They were never married! They’re free to drag him into family court and put the screws to him. Or, they can keep living with him and demand he support her while *legitimately* refusing to have sex with him. Because adultery.
Second, it would be insanely easy for the enemies of the church to call Christians out on this. It’s not possible to refute this and adultery is the sin that keeps on giving. The only way to repent of living with another man’s wife is to either throw the woman out or get rid of that first marriage. But to continue to live with another man’s wife is to live in open and notorious adultery. Christians aren’t supposed to be committing adultery.
But… wait. Why would the enemies of Christ want the church to clean up its act and stop sinning? They wouldn’t, would they? No.
If the enemies of the church really want to destroy the church, they would attack anyone who told the truth about this huge problem while ignoring the issue. Because covering up the sin ensures the sin continues and doesn’t ever get repented of. And it ensures the false doctrines continue to get taught and new generations fall into the same pit.
This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. When the book of the Law was found (how did it get “lost”?) and read to Josiah, he wept and tore his clothes. He repented. And then he spent the rest of his life working to root out the idolatry in the land. God still destroyed Israel because of their sin, but He waited until after Josiah died.
The thing is, I’m not throwing rocks. By any standard one wants to use, I’m a fantastic adulterer, even though I thought I was doing everything correctly. So I can sympathize with men who have been placed in a position of living with another man’s wife because they were taught virginity is meaningless and you have to have a public ceremony in order to be married. The question is whether it’s better to continue in sin or do what has to be done to stop sinning.
Of course, fixing the problem requires the teachers and pastors to admit that the doctrines they’ve taught are lies and because of those lies, the church is deep in sin. I don’t see that happening for a lot of reasons, which is sad.
I will now step back and allow y’all to continue the discussion of fapping.
Here we get to the main point, AT is the AMOG! You losers can’t get a single faithful wife and he has several. Ha! He has it over on you, and he has long screeds to argue that.
This is why I am growing to despise him Boxer. I likely share the intelligence trait you note, but I know better to say that I am better than everyone else. Though I lost in the wife lottery instead of winning several times, so I must be worth less.
And AT wonders why some of us don’t even bother to engage him….
It also strongly seems like AT is the Secret King of his own dreams. Not only is he hot stuff, 2 of his wives are hotter than Black Widow in the Avengers movie!
Cane,
ROFL!
That completely makes the point that all this porn worship is ludicrous. No civilized society would ever say that, at least not any I can even remotely think of.
@Dalrock
*”1) AT claimed that only items spelled out in the Law can be sins, and anyone who claims otherwise (including God) is sinning. He offered two passages from Romans supporting this claim”*………….end quote
Though I disagree with AT on many of his outlandish claims, he is essentially correct here……I in fact gave this thread NOT just the verses from Romans, as did AT, but I gave you all, at least 3 other verses that conclusively prove that sin is not imputed to a person if there is no LAW condemning such behavior. Matthew 5:17-18, Romans 4:15, 1st John 3:4
Any attempt to call something a sin, that is not explicitly mentioned in the LAW or the NT, is an attempt to add to the word of God and to obviate God’s clear instructions for mankind, and I’m sorry Dalrock but I must include YOU in my censure as well
*” I pointed out that the passages in question actually prove the opposite”*…….end quote
Actually they don’t prove your point at all, as you’re building upon a false foundation.
Yes, sin was in the world before the LAW was given, but NONE of us live in a PRE LAW world, we all live POST LAW, and mankind will be judged by his adherence to and failure to keep what is contained in the LAW.
None of us are able to obey the law’s demands, so Christ died for our sins and HIS righteousness was imputed to those of us who believe the gospel, but that’s another story for another thread
*”What else am I missing?”*………….end quote
You seem to be missing, how this thread has been completely hijacked by Roman Catholics and their heretical, anti-sexual garbage
Anyone who disagrees with their position is the target of their continual snide remarks, and Ad hominem attacks, like “Christian wankers for Jesus”
I’m new here, so I don’t know what your stand is on the Roman Catholic church, but it is distressing to me to see just how many Catholics are in this thread, and their continual assaults go unchallenged.
Minesweeper, feministhater, and I have put up a brave stand but we’ve literally been swamped out
I’m not interested in this thread, being an us vs them, as this profits no one, but I am concerned at the lack of Protestant feedback in this thread, calling them out
Just my 2 cents
It’s like Jesus never preached his Sermon on the Mount.
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”
Where is any of that in the OT law? Yet Jesus establishes it is sin. Who is more important, the Word of God, or the prophet Moses that he sent? Yet you have devalued what Jesus preached in favor of what Moses instructed!
“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.”
The OT was a preview and a foundation to reveal the higher, more perfect Law.
@necroking48 there is supposed to be a truce with the Catholics, but they do bring their particular… perspective to things. I find their perspective… well, if we Scripturalists are the Wankers, they are sui-Castrati (self-castrated) Because their doctrine and outlook amounts to self-castration. And not them only, but all the Protestants who forbid divorce and remarriage. Leveticus 15 shows that wanking carries a penalty. You are unclean for 12 hours. That means you are socially isolated, and can’t partake of any sacraments for that period of time. Small penalty, but a penalty none-the-less. Is wanking shameful? Certainly, just like being naked, excreting or copulating. They are normal functions of life, but you don’t do them in public. Where Leviticus 15 puts a mild, gentle pressure on a young man to give up masturbation by the psychological process of low-level annoyance. Catholic doctrine turns it into something so harsh and unreasonable, that few men would even attempt to refrain. For long.
Jesus said my yoke is light, my burden is easy. The sui-Castrati have turned sex and marriage into a major burden, and taken away the joy. That is why most Catholic men and women promptly become obese as soon as they are marriaged. The hellish conflicts in a Catholic marriage are legendary, even before modern feminism.
Dear Zippy:
No sir. If I had one request of you, it’d be to expound a bit for those of us who aren’t thinking Catholic. Once I started translating it into your language ‘not married’ := “not in a sacramental marriage per canon law” your article made sense.
As I said above, this is really an interesting way to parse Matt 19:9. If there were an “or” instead of an “and” it’d be more conclusive; but, the Zippy-Bruce hypothesis is still a distinct possibility.
Best,
Boxer
Dear Billy:
It’s not possible he’s trolling you guys, is it? If it were, then he’d be having a laugh at making you guys all upset.
You lost, did you? That’s an interesting statement.
You will have total freedom in a few short months, once you get done paying your cheating ex off. My nigga Toad, in contrast, has to step and fetch for three women. I have no reason to disbelieve him when he boasts about their hotness or their submissiveness, but he’s still a kept man. That’s just the nature of the sexes.
Best,
Boxer
Boxer:
Thanks. Rather than me cluttering up the thread with a lot of in-line Catholic perspectives you might find this an interesting entry point:
https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/are-people-even-marrying-anymore/
@Dalrock
“AT makes an outlandish claim, and this is refuted.”
Please point me to where I was refuted.
Was it the part about Jesus citing Genesis 2:24 as the authority for marriage?
Was it the part about the word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 meaning “sex”?
I have only skimmed the comments, but I don’t recall any refuting of that and at the end of the day I made that my argument. You asked a question, I answered and cited that as my proof.
So, if someone “refuted” that, please let me know. Or anyone else, feel free to help our bloghost.
Hamster claimed that you did this post for me and I was invited to the party. As I stated to him, I think you have enough intellectual honesty that you’d have linked to me and quoted me if that was the case, as well as inviting me to defend myself. And… of course, you didn’t link to anything of mine, you certainly didn’t quote me and I didn’t get an invitation. Ipso facto, but Hamster is an idiot. I did get several emails from different folks who asked me if they needed to stock up on popcorn, which is how I found out about this post.
You’ve rightly stated that a number of issues have been brought up, but as I stated to you, this is the only one: The eligible virgin is married when she first has sex. That also happens to be the one you are avoiding.
There is the traditional claim that says consent makes marriage and several have voiced support for that view. Numerous interlocutors have raised the issue of legal status and I responded with Deuteronomy 24:1, the language is specific and there is a difference between a man taking a wife and marrying her. I assert there are different ways to take a wife, but only one way to marry her.
Sex is what marries her because that is what Genesis 2:24 says.
I have made no arguments about betrothals or engagements or legal entanglements, my argument has been that an eligible virgin is married when she is penetrated by a man. That is, when she first has sex. And if there are no agreements or other entanglements involved, then she is married to the man she gives her virginity to.
Your argument about sin was answered and I was clear that sin is not *only* a violation of the Law, but sin is only a sin for *everyone* if it’s a violation of the Law. Which is exactly what Paul said. Your lack of faith might cause you to be in sin if you were to tranzvert a couple of beezles, which means you need to leave those beezles alone. However, your lack of faith with regard to beezles does not mean I’m in sin if I tranzvert a couple of them. Even if I’m eating fish tacos when I do it. Why? Because God didn’t have anything to say about beezles or fish taacos and quite apparently doesn’t care how they get tranzverted or what might happen afterward. And God does not care about fish tacos.
Not only that, but any claim you might make concerning whether tranzverting while being weezlee-whee is a sin is a violation of what God did have to say because Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 are clear that you don’t get to add to or subtract from the Law. Besides…it’s none of your business whether my beezles like to wahoo or whump when they get tranzverted. Or even whether I tranzvert them or just go fishing.
As to your behavior, if you like to hold your wife’s head under the covers and fart, I have nothing to say about that. It’s not any of my business. As to how sinful that might be, that’s between you, her and God. What I can and will say is I don’t do that because… consequences… and sooner or later a man has to go to sleep. I don’t live in a democracy, but I definitely have three votes over here who all say that holding your wife’s head underneath the covers and farting is a sin.
@SirHamster
*”Where is any of that in the OT law?”*…………..end quote
Of course you conveniently left out the key verse before it, which reads …..Mat 5:21 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:”
That’s the LAW right there, all Jesus did was to amplify what previously existed, without getting rid of it
I find all those who defend the position, that there are sins NOT mentioned in the LAW, dishonest in your handling of the word of God
@Mycroft Jones
You nailed it with your comment
@Mad_kalak – “What I do not understand, is why the OT laws for keeping kosher and other thing were done away with by Christ, but all the OT stuff about marrying a virgin just by having sex with her is somehow still relevant….So, why is some OT relevant and some isn’t and why?”
Some things were either explicitly confirmed or rejected by someone (e.g. Jesus, Paul). But for the rest, what is the answer? One key is that not all OT Laws are of the same category. (I engaged with Toad on this issue on my blog). Some laws apply only to specific classes of individuals (by gender, nationality, tribe, social class, etc.). There is no standard agreement among Christians on which laws apply and which do not. It varies all the way from none to everything depending on who you ask.
One of the mistakes that has been made here in the context of sex and masturbation is the notion of ritual uncleanness. (See comments by Dale, feministhater, and Dale) It comes as a shock to most to hear that touching the unclean fluids of an Israelite made one unclean while touching those same fluids of a foreigner did not. The laws of ritual purity had to do with Israel’s being separated from other nations. It was not a moral code, it was a statuatory code designed for that specific purpose. It doesn’t apply to those of us who are not Jews under the old covenant. It never applied to Gentiles and cannot apply.
So in many cases it isn’t that the laws were completely done away with, they simply never applied to Gentiles in the first place. Jesus opened the doors for salvation for Gentiles. Gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to participate in Christ’s kingdom. Paul, as a Pharisee who understood the Law, makes this quite clear.
Selected References:
[1] Leviticus 12:1-2: “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel…”
[2] Paul Was Not A Christian. Chapter 6: Who is and who isn’t a Jew. Pamela Eisenbaum. Pages 100-101.
[3] Jesus, Paul, and the Law. James D.G. Dunn. Page 142.
[4] Gentile Impurities. Christine E. Hayes. Page 21.
[5] Mishnah Miqwa’ot 8.4.
@ Artisanal Toad
I did no such thing. You are a confused individual.
@ necroking48
No, you conveniently forgot your own statement: “Any attempt to call something a sin, that is not explicitly mentioned in the LAW or the NT, is an attempt to add to the word of God and to obviate God’s clear instructions for mankind …” (emphasis added)
You distinguished between the LAW and the NT. That restricts the LAW to what is written in the OT.
When Jesus said, “whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”, that is not in the LAW. It is no stoning offense. But Jesus reveals that it is hell worthy.
Now you did say, “or the NT”, which may seem an out – but you should still agree that Jesus ADDED to the LAW – and I cited what the NEW LAW is – love as Jesus loves, and be perfect as God is perfect.
Going back to your defense – you say Jesus has only amplified what was there. Well, so are we – your masturbation habit is to adultery what hateful words are to murder. But I suppose that is your next defense – only Jesus is allowed to amplify what is there. Too bad any man with two brain cells recognizes what lusting after women has to do with porn.
@SirHamster – “It is not clear to me that initiation/consummation is separated along the legal and physical+spiritual lines you describe here.”
I don’t believe I can be dogmatic on this point. I have always held to a consent=marriage belief my entire life. Having been exposed to Artisanal Toad’s viewpoints, I’ve found the basic argument that sex is always an expectation of marriage to be quite the compelling argument. Of course I deviate quite a bit from AT’s conclusions, so make what you will of that.
Here are some of the main issues with the traditional consent view:
1) Sexless marriages in the Bible are always an aberration, confirming that sex is the fundamental attribute of all normal marriages.
2) Jesus equated sex in marriage (one-flesh joining) as the reason why divorce is wrong, emphasizing its primacy.
3) The teaching of Genesis 2:24 applies to the period before the Law was given, so its standalone interpretation cannot contradict anything that came later.
4) The Law had to explicitly mention that violation of a betrothed is adultery, because otherwise it wouldn’t have been.
5) Sex=expectation-of-marriage easily explains why all non-marital sex is wrong. Without this it is much harder to condemn various sexually immmoral practices as being actual sin.
However, I have underplayed the spiritual aspect of initiation. It is almost certainly more significant than I have been implying by arguing only one side of the issue. davidvs said I was quibbling counter to the original audience, which is a fair assessment. I think this may be more nuanced than a simple either-or black-and-white issue.
“But as the punishment is the same, they are considered the same from the moral/legal perspective.”
The law says that the punishment is the same and the implication is because it is morally equivalent to adultery. Sharing a common punishment does not make them the same, it makes them similar. My point is that acknowledging the need for a declaration of their moral equivalency acknowledges the inherent difference between them, otherwise such a declaration wouldn’t be required. But you are correct that it is an acknowledgment that God takes it very seriously, even without sex. It’s just not enough of a proof to override the objection. The sex is a theft of property, so it’s not like adultery is the only crime happening, unless you want to argue that adultery is theft because it is a declaration of marital intent to someone who is already married (I would argue this).
“Jesus ADDED to the LAW
I find it interesting that Jesus adopted the modern Pharisaic practice of praying before meals when the law only required praying after meals. Jesus gave quiet approval to that addition to the Law without any debate.
@Artisanal Toad – “Hamster claimed that you did this post for me and I was invited to the party.”
It was pretty obvious that this post was inspired by you, although probably not exclusively. It should be taken as a compliment IMO. Your views are clear and interesting enough that many, many people find your views on the topic to be relevant and interesting. I know I was one of many eagerly awaiting your replies.
@Artisanal Toad – “He did choose to ban cult prostitutes, which points to the fact He didn’t have anything to say about ordinary non-idolatry prostitutes. “
The fact is that having sex with a cult prostitute is not just adultery, it is also idolatry. This makes it among the worst possible offenses against God. It is no wonder then that it is especially highlighted. This does not, however, imply that regular prostitution is fine. That is an argument from silence and must be rejected.
“Righteous prostitutes”
There is no such thing. Not a single prostitute in the Bible was righteous because of their prostitution. They may have done righteous things other than prostitution (e.g. Rahab), but that’s it. Many sinners in the Bible were applauded for their righteous actions, and we don’t go around saying that their sinning actions were fine because of their redeeming qualities.
“what about the women who are not virgins but not married? There are a few of them, mostly widows. Well, according to Numbers 30:9 and 1 Cor. 7:39, they are not married until they choose to be married because they have the freedom to choose who they will be married to. “
This is another error. Just because these woman have agency to decide to get married (as opposed to virgins living in their father’s house) does not mean that sex does not result in an expectation of marriage. You’ve presented a false dilemma. A widow is not forced to choose between having sex without marriage or sex with marriage. They have the option of not having sex if they wish to not be married. In the case of rape, the widow has agency to decline the marriage offer just as the father has the right to decline the marriage offer made to his deflowered virgin daughter. There is no double standard, only a difference of agency. At no point does this mean a widow can engage in prostitution. Freely having sex is consent to be married because the widow has agency.
@SirHamster
*”Now you did say, “or the NT”, which may seem an out – but you should still agree that Jesus ADDED to the LAW – and I cited what the NEW LAW is”*……….end quote
WRONG!!…….There is no NEW law being added, I deliberately used the word “amplify” in my comment, I never used the word “ADDED”, as even Jesus will not add to the word of God
To help you see what Jesus was driving at, ask yourself a question, “is it a sin to call someone a “fool?”” Now be honest, based on your “false” interpretation of Matthew 5, you have come to the conclusion, that it is a SIN to call someone a fool, based on Jesus’s words……Therefore there are things NOT contained in the LAW which can be called sin (according to your interpretation)
Alright then, what will you do when Jesus calls someone a fool?, in Matthew 23:17, and Luke 12:20, also did Paul sin by calling others “fool” in 1st Corinthians 15:36?…..do you believe for 1 second that Paul was afraid of going to hell for what he did?
When you start to read the CONTEXT, you will see that there are NO NEW laws, and that calling someone a fool is NOT a transgression of a new law….Jesus was driving at something else using satire, and hyperbole
*”your masturbation habit is to adultery what hateful words are to murder”*…..end quote
Nice try, but you fail as usual….Adultery can only occur with a wife that BELONGS to another husband, because it is theft in God’s eyes….It is simply impossible for the sin of adultery to occur with an unattached woman, according to GOD’S own definition that HE set up in the first place…..Hopefully you are intelligent enough to see the implications of what I just said without me going into graphic detail
This is why I have maintained previously, that ALL ascetics, and anti-masturbators have to change Christ’s words in Matthew 5 and LIE that Jesus said fornication, when he actually used the word ADULTERY
You god forsaken reprobates simply will not submit to what the scriptures say….Instead, you change the text, to suit your own agenda, and in this case the agenda is a devilish inspired anti-sexual asceticism straight from the pit of hell, that wishes to place a burden upon men and women on a made up “sin”, that is nowhere mentioned in scripture
We have a base disagreement here about whether some things are sin or not. How do we know what is sinful?
God gave us the law for that (Rom 7:7-12, 15:4); to teach us what is sin.
But since it doesn’t call sin all the things you hate you resort to the commandments of men, misconstruing one thing for another, or taking scripture out of context.
Props to Dalrock for at least coming up with a halfway convincing argument using 1 Cor 6; even though it doesn’t withstand scrutiny. At least it sounded plausible; unlike the stubborn attempts to conflate masturbation with adultery.
@Hamster
At August 14, 2017 at 9:43 pm, the Hamster said:
@ Artisanal Toad
Hamster claimed that you did this post for me and I was invited to the party.
I did no such thing. You are a confused individual.
Observe:
At August 11, 2017 at 1:51 pm, the Hamster said:
“AT reads the first sentence and becomes too triggered to continue reading the post that contained the argument he demanded. AT was invited to fight out his position, but he has chosen to retreat into a delusion where the arguments laid out against him do not exist. “
Oops… and Hamster claims to have refuted me. I will state AGAIN, my main point, because obviously Hamster didn’t understand it, much less refute it:
The eligible virgin is married when she first has penetrative intercourse.
Genesis 2:24. The word “dabaq’ means “sex” within the context of that passage. I stated a simple exegesis. I linked to a complete one. That means that when the eligible virgin has sex, she’s married to the man who nails her.
Hamster, you’re not even a midwit and the sad truth that nobody wants to admit because they’re too nice to you is you really aren’t tall enough for this ride. Boxer spanks you with regularity and you don’t even realize it. You’re right up there with “Biblical Principles (™)” Dave when it comes to your lack of intellectual horsepower.
The worst part is I”m convinced you are a normal, sincere Christian. Which is a tragedy.
@BillyS
I’m now out of the closet for reasons that don’t concern anyone here. Yes, multiple wives. Does that make me “better” than others here? No, I’ve simply taken on more responsibility than those who have only one, but that’s because I’m not willing to do the work that’s required to only have one wife. Make of that what you will.
Yes, two of them have martial skills and within their environment I’ll put them up against professionals, but that points to the fact they have skills and the idiot in question is extremely unlikely to rise to that level. The average keyboard warrior certainly doesn’t have the kind of skills my girls do, the greatest of which is observably that they can put up with me. Because (as they’re all well-aware), I’m a complete asshole. But there was a time when two of them got paid for being lethal, in the free market. That counts in the PMC market.
The one with so-called “no skills” who would “kill you with kindness” has a degree in biochemistry. Connect the dots. Paracelsus is good point of contact if don’t understand. In my house, Lord Montrose is an honored man. It’s something along the lines of “we’re going to die anyway, to hell with what anyone else thinks.” I don’t recommend it for a model, but it works for us.
So… nobody accepts us and I can point to DTS-favor evangelical churches that will absolutely embrace flaming homosexuals but can’t tolerate my family. Own it. Obviously these are your people. And I’m really, really busy now, what with all the responsibilities that I obviously signed up for.
@Derek Ramsey
“Having been exposed to Artisanal Toad’s viewpoints”
You got spanked on my blog but now you’ve forgotten? Gosh. And what happened to that essay you were going to write me? But let’s not go there.
Derek Ramsey said, on August 14, 2017 at 10:51 pm
@Artisanal Toad – “He did choose to ban cult prostitutes, which points to the fact He didn’t have anything to say about ordinary non-idolatry prostitutes. “
The fact is that having sex with a cult prostitute is not just adultery, it is also idolatry. This makes it among the worst possible offenses against God. It is no wonder then that it is especially highlighted. This does not, however, imply that regular prostitution is fine. That is an argument from silence and must be rejected.
You make multiple errors. First you claim it is a “fact” that a prostitute is committing adultery. Really?
Who died and made you God?
Adultery is the crime of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband. We know this because it’s defined at Levitcus 18:20 and 20:10. The definition? Adultery is the crime of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband. What does that mean? It means it’s is not possible for an unmarried woman to commit adultery.
The worst possible offense against God? All offenses against God can all be forgiven, except for one…. or have you not read? Prostitution isn’t even an offense and you know that… otherwise you’d have cited chapter and verse. Prostitution is the same as farming, it’s a regulated way of earning a living. And if a farmer can be righteous, so can being a prostitute.
Don’t agree? Cite chapter and verse on the prohibition on prostitution. Oops… but that’s going t go straight to that verse you can’t cite that contains the non-existent prohibition on an eligible man and woman having sex “outside of marriage.” You know, the one that does not exist because God never prohibited that. Because marriage begins with sex.
Especially highlighted sin? No. Cult prostitution was forbidden, ordinary prostitution was not. And even Hamster will notice that you didn’t want to discuss ordinary prostitution. You are engaged in intellectual dishonesty. Right now Hamster is actually scoring higher than you. Which really says something considering how much more intelligent you are than him.
So, Derek Ramsey, absent God’s prohibition, why should we listen to your condemnation of prostitutes? Why does your opinion make their behavior a sin? Did you take a vote? Did you get Dalrock’s permission? Please answer while we’re waiting for Dalrock to tell us whether holding his wife’s head under the covers while he farts is a sin.. Why is your arrogant and judgmental opinion that prostitution is a sin binding on anyone else?
Who are you to say a prostitute is committing adultery when you don’t know if she’s married? Who are you to claim she’s in sin when you don’t know? Are you God? You won’t even come down off your holier-than-thou platform and make a statement on the question of whether the virgin is married when she first has sex.
The word for all this is hypocrite.
@Necroking48
Concerning Hamster.
Arguing with an idiot is like wrestling with a pig. The pig enjoys it, you get dirty. For it is written:
“A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey,
And a rod for the back of fools.
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes.”
The follow up question to all of this is… if we all admit that the natural order of things has been entirely undermined. If there are few virgins for a man to marry in his twenties, let alone 15 years later when women, having succesfully deprived potential husbands of the wife of their youth, even begin to consider marriage. If the Churches condone and encourage this context, what do you really believe God would have a man do? What prescription do you offer in the present unnatural context? What is the real problem?
I read reference to removing a part of your body if it should cause you to sin. It seems that should count for most churches these days. They are not simply heretical, but they are actively destroying the gifts God gave to man and woman alike in marriage. When the topic of tithing comes up again, will it be agreed that they should be cut off for causing their congregation to sin? Or is this really just blind obedience to church leaders who show no love for God’s creation, but instead actively participate in it’s destruction?
@They Call Me Tom
“What prescription do you offer in the present unnatural context?”
As a man you are authorized to marry any woman who is eligible to marry. So, all you have to do is ensure she’s not married:
https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/07/12/protocol-for-women/
@Artisanal Toad
*”Adultery is the crime of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband. We know this because it’s defined at Levitcus 18:20 and 20:10. The definition? Adultery is the crime of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband. What does that mean? It means it’s is not possible for an unmarried woman to commit adultery”*
Yup you nailed it 100%….irrefutable, game over for those idiots who try to argue against this
@Derek
““Jesus ADDED to the LAW””
I find it interesting that Jesus adopted the modern Pharisaic practice of praying before meals when the law only required praying after meals. Jesus gave quiet approval to that addition to the Law without any debate.”
You agree with that twaddle? Jesus did not have the authority to add to the Law. By His own testimony the Law will endure forever, until all things are accomplished. And… Guess what?
If Jesus added to the Law, He was in sin because He violated the prohibition not to add to or subtract from the Law (Deut 4:2; 12:32). That means He was in sin, not a perfect sacrifice, not the Messiah. In other words, the entire NT is a lie and Christianity is a lie.
Also, please cite chapter and verse on this requirement to pray after meals.
You misunderstand. The first response I made to you challenged a specific point. That challenge is an invitation by me, SirHamster, to fight out your position on the specific point challenged. It never occurred to me to make any comment on why Dalrock would make a particular thread, or what he thinks of you.
Now, what did you do in response to my challenge? You evaded. You brought up a 2 year old thread and somebody who isn’t here. Then you started posturing about my needing to cite Scripture and make an argument while ignoring the argument I made and the Scripture I cited.
Genesis declares that in marriage, a woman is a man’s wife, before the two become one flesh. Can a woman become a man’s wife without being married to the man?
Note that Genesis only calls her wife, without reference to “eligible”, “virgin”, or “penetrative”.
This is what you said and what I challenged: “The question is how God has defined marriage. He defined marriage as the man penetrating the eligible virgin with the act of sexual intercourse. Period.”
It it’s just your personal definition, I don’t care. When you call it God’s definition, then the claim should stand up to scrutiny.
That it took you several days and half a dozen posts to even start addressing the content of my challenge is why I care so little about what you think. You are slow to listen and quick to blabber, and demonstrate very poor reading comprehension, whether it be Scripture, or someone else’s thoughts and perspective.
Considering you two posture a lot, I can believe you two are rhetorically minded and are actually impressed with each other’s rhetorical displays.
But if you’re going to borrow Vox Populi and Men of the West language and terminology, you’re going to have do better than rhetoric for me to care what you think.
@Hamster
“You misunderstand.”
[Sigh]
“the content of my challenge”
You made no challenge and you certainly didn’t refute what I said.
When does the marriage begin? That is the question you can’t seem to see and don’t want to answer. When does God decide a woman is married, every time, in every culture and in all nations for all time? What did the Bible say about it?
The answer is when she has sex the first time. Which might just be why women come equipped (as standard equipment) with a tamper-proof seal on their vagina that’s known as a hymen. It’s designed to rupture and bleed when she first has penetrative intercourse.
As to the linguistic difference between a man “taking a wife” and “marrying her” you must have missed where I cited and quoted from Deut. 24:1 and made the distinction that there is a difference between a man taking a wife and marrying her. She might be his wife, but until he penetrates her she is not married. Yes, in Deuteronomy 22 the betrothed virgin is referred to as the man’s wife, but she isn’t a married woman yet. Which illustrates the point. And in that context, the word “marry” is a verb. No, I don’t expect you to understand, but then I wasn’t explaining that for you because if I was, I’d have used tinker-toys and modeling clay to explain it.
But in missing that linguistic point, you were incapable of seeing the rest of it, that a woman does NOT have to be a man’s wife when he marries her. They can go straight to sex and she is married to him AND is his wife because of the sex that married them. Sex is how she is married regardless of whether she is a wife first. So, whether it’s the back seat of a car or the sofa in the basement or her bed, the eligible virgin is married when she first has sex.
The proof? Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Hamster, she was not his wife when he seized her and raped her, but raping her resulted in her being a married woman. Because sex is how the virgin is married and her consent is not required in order for her to be married.
” for me to care what you think.”
Hamster, I don’t care what you think. The truth is you’re just a garden-variety idiot in search of a village. On Vox’s blog you don’t get to be the village idiot because Snidely Whiplash holds that position. Because he’s a complete idiot. Here, “Biblical Principles™” Dave is probably the strongest contender for that position, but even if Dave dropped out of the running you’d still have to beat Gunner Q and that would be hard because he’s a serious idiot. You’re just a garden-variety idiot who might be a real idiot one day if you work at it. You could be a real idiot, but you’re not a serious idiot and nowhere close to being a complete idiot. Still, I’m sure that you’ll persevere and one day you can find a village somewhere where you can be the official idiot.
Until then? You’re what is known as an anklebiter. And no, I don’t expect you to agree… I don’t even expect you to understand.
Concerning Boxer:
“Considering you two posture a lot, I can believe you two are rhetorically minded and are actually impressed with each other’s rhetorical displays.”
I’m quite sure he’s laughing his ass off at that statement.
I’ve presented the case of the Virgin Mary. Joseph took her as his wife (Matt 1:24) and having sex wasn’t the reason why she was his wife. Some of us have answered your question, but you refuse to get out of your own thinking.
Are we still on this????
Wow. 700 replies.
@Earl.
There are two parts to marriage. Contract and deed. They are both separate and dependent.
Mary was Joseph’s wife because she had agreed to be (or her father had). It was a vow and came with expectations. Joseph could release her from it (as long as he hadn’t slept with her) If she “played the harlot” she might be executed. This is what we think of when we think “marriage”
Now about the virgin you sleep with BEFORE obtaining the above agreement? You just consummated the above agreement…………..right then at that moment. Simply because God EXPECTS that.
It kinda like deciding whether to hitch the cart to the horse or the horse to the cart. One is a vow that obligates an action, the other is an action that obligates an vow.
As to whether this applies only to virgins or to all unmarried women…………I dunno. I can’t see God liking random sex with non virgins.
One is the moral and proper way, the other leaves a lot of room for injustice and offenses against the dignity of marriage. And because modern thought tries to separate sex and marriage…there’s a lot of injustice going around. It should be no surprise how divorce risk goes up the more that injustice goes up (N of women has been the big stat when it comes to divorce risk)
And at least when it comes to my church…it is not considered a marriage just by consummation alone. It is considered a sin. There has to be a public ratification and private consummation by baptized Christians to be considered an indissoluble marriage. Secular thinking oftentimes tries to shortcut something.
@Earl: rather God told Joseph to take Mary into his house. His move to put her away was not that he was responding to an adultery scenario but that he indeed believed her and that he was, as a sinful man, not to be in the presence of the Holy. Thus he is called righteous.
Finally, making Mary and Joseph the normative case re: sexual intercourse is hardly helpful. The case is better put as “do what God tells you to do.”
@Artisanal Toad – “Also, please cite chapter and verse on this requirement to pray after meals.”
Deuteronomy 8:10
“You agree with that twaddle?”
It has nothing to do with my agreement and everything to do with logic. The Pharisees took the law on praying after meals and innovated the Law to include the requirement to pray before meals. This is simple historic fact. We also know from the gospels that Jesus adopted this practice.
Now given these facts, I’m forced into one or two possible options: either Jesus added to the Law and was thus a fraud or you are wrong in your legalistic interpretation.
Without rehashing our entire argument that we’ve had previously on my blog, I will quickly summarize. The Torah requires interpretation. It is why rabbis existed. It is why Jesus instructed his followers to “bind and loose”, rabbinic terminology for interpreting and applying scripture to various areas not explicitly mentioned in the Law.
@Earl
From an RCC perspective I can see how you believe this. And as such, it is truth for you. God did not put me in an RCC, however he did provide his word and an avenue for prayer. And if WWIII started tomorrow and wiped out all of the organized churches and religions, Gods truth still remains. If there is no priest, how could anyone marry? Make the pledge/do the deed.
While I agree that the promise after the deed invites corruption, it doesn’t change the fact of what God expects. I think at this point we are down to the RCC/Prot issue of “is an intermediary needed to make official before God” and we won’t agree on that anytime soon. I do enjoy hearing your perspective and to see you holding to conscience.
@DerekRamsey
Deu 8:10 isn’t a requirement to pray after meals. It is part of a larger theme in that chapter. He had just got done telling the Israelites about how even when they were wandering in the desert, their clothes didn’t wear out and their feet didn’t swell. At verse 10, he is telling them that he isn’t willing to show them his goodness and when they see it they will give thanks.
He commands us to remember him And give thanks. Not to forget him.
Yes the Pharisees added to the law. Jesus didn’t. Just because he gave thanks before he broke bread doesn’t mean he changed the law. He didn’t even “require” it. Just because he did it, doesn’t mean he made it a law. He also didn’t marry. It’s not a law to not get married.
Edit: at verse 10, God is telling them that he IS willing them his goodness
@Artisanal Toad
No need to ask for help. It was right below the text you copied:
This is your style. You present a wall of text, and then pretend you won the argument. Some men here desperately want to believe there is a loophole, so this is good enough for them. This is their choice, but deep down they know better.
For example, in this comment you wrote 1843 words, explaining that a virgin’s consent is irrelevant to whether she becomes married, it is sex that marries her. Then you explain that a father can stop sex from making his virgin daughter a wife, because he can revoke her consent.
But this wall of text was merely cover, to wear out the easily tired, before getting to your brilliant point, a point that is too ridiculous to merely make in the beginning:
@Hose B
*”Yes the Pharisees added to the law. Jesus didn’t. Just because he gave thanks before he broke bread doesn’t mean he changed the law. He didn’t even “require” it. Just because he did it, doesn’t mean he made it a law. He also didn’t marry. It’s not a law to not get married”*
Nailed it…..Those who dogmatically maintain that Jesus added to the LAW, needs to read your comment here
Pingback: Righteous prostitutes, spreading their legs free of sin. | Dalrock
Boxer says:
August 11, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Dear Dale:
Are you going through Vancouver? If so, let me know. I’ll buy you a steak 🙂
Thanks Dale! I was actually in Surrey for a couple weeks in July. I went back up to BC (Cranbrook this time) last week. I’ve been in North Idaho since.
The whole province is on fire. I’m still coughing up the remnants of my visit.
Seems to be more than a few B.C. (or former) residents on this forum. I lived in Cranbrook for 11 mos. Fall 2000 to summer 2001. Hot summers and winters that are usually colder than Alaska or the Yukon, even though it is around 60 miles/100K from Idaho. Don’t miss the place. Also, a few years ago the uneducated voted in a referendum to put toxic fluoride in water even though it is being removed from many communites. Never been back since. I am being smoked out as I live a valley near western Washington state.
Someone may have already addressed this in the many previous comments, but even if the arguments of the pro-sex-with-non-virgins camp held water, I would expect to find a precedent for this teaching in church history.
I’m not making a tradition vs. scripture argument. I just mean that if one cannot find a shred of evidence that anyone of any credibility in the 2,000-year history of Christianity has espoused a similar position, it should give one pause to reconsider one’s own interpretation. Surely every Christian thinker of all time wasn’t foolishly waiting in chastity for the great and wise Artisanal Toad to enlighten us on the proper way to get our rocks off.
Pingback: More SirHamster Whining – v5k2c2
Dear Toad:
Leave it to SirHamster to respond to funny arguments, not with equally witty ripostes, but with acres of ponderously dull, yet entirely pointless gibbering.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/more-sirhamster-whining/
His every response just illustrates what a boring jackass he is.
Best,
Boxer
Ryder-
I agree with that, and you worded it well. There are lots of heresies which do have historical precedent, this one doesn’t that I can tell.
AT: “I’ve simply taken on more responsibility than those who have only one, but that’s because I’m not willing to do the work that’s required to only have one wife. … two of them have martial skills…
The one with so-called “no skills” … has a degree in biochemistry.”
You chose to be the kitchen bitch for the Laura Croft triplets because it’s less work than monogamy?
@Hose_B – “Deu 8:10 isn’t a requirement to pray after meals…He commands us to remember him And give thanks. Not to forget him.”
Deut. 8:1 says to follow every command that is being given. The command is to give thanks after meals. How is that not a requirement? Teachers throughout Israel’s history and into Christianity interpreted this as a command, although with some irony as Christians pray before meals because that was what Jesus is recorded as doing.
Are you saying that this was just a general command to be thankful and that doing it after meals wasn’t a particularly important detail? Because that’s a “spirit of the law” interpretation and if you are going to open that door, you’ll need to dispense with any notion of a fixed interpretation of the law that cannot be “changed”.
Or are you saying this is figure of speech where “eaten and satisfied” means taking possession of the land? Maybe this is the case, but you’ll have to balance that against the historical understanding/practice. It is also difficult to hold a legalistic view on the immutability of the law when it is subject to the vagaries of unclear figures of speech.
“Yes the Pharisees added to the law. Jesus didn’t. Just because he gave thanks before he broke bread doesn’t mean he changed the law. He didn’t even “require” it. Just because he did it, doesn’t mean he made it a law. He also didn’t marry. It’s not a law to not get married.”
If the Pharisees were adding to the law, and adding to the law is truly forbidden, then Jesus gave tacit approval to that addition to the law by approving of that action without condemning it. Jesus stood in front of 5,000 men and gave thanks before the meal. That’s 5,000 men who understood the Pharisaic command (under their interpretation of the Law) to do this and that Jesus, a rabbi, was also approving of this practice.
Are you suggesting that Jesus was effectively saying that the teachers of the law (except himself) were horrible hypocrites and wicked for changing the law, but then adopted those same practices in his own ministry?
Pingback: Righteous prostitutes, spreading their legs free of sin. - Top
Gunner_Q
You chose to be the kitchen bitch for the Laura Croft triplets because it’s less work than monogamy?
Thread winner, hands down. Bonus points for the Wonka meme.
Here is the AT’s counter-argument to my challenge that a woman is wife before sex:
A woman can be a wife without being married.
One. Sentence. Was that so hard? It’s freaking stupid, but that’s all that I was looking for from AT. Took him 5 posts to get to it.
Less is more, midwit.
Because I am a glutton for punishment, a list of stupidity in AT’s logorrhea directed at me:
The Bible doesn’t say that, false witness.
Those poor unmarried wives.
By definition, a man marries a woman who is not his wife, so that she will become his wife. I believe EVERY woman is NOT a man’s wife when he marries her.
Despite posturing as intelligent, AT does not understand my viewpoint, and his prediction of my disagreement fails completely.
Creepily reads rape into Deuteronomy.
AT was careful enough to put in “eligible virgin” into his claim. But it doesn’t explain why the promise of marrying a woman has greater power than another man sneakily having sex with her.
Use idiot a few more times. Exhaust that eloquent vocabulary.
Stealing Vox’s catchphrase and COPYING what I already used on you? Original. Thinker.
Which is why you dedicate long blog posts to lying about me. Secret King declares that he is WINNING.
Hey, boring jackass Boxer, if you want to hurt my feelz, you have to demonstrate that I am wrong and unaligned with truth.
Lies and name-calling won’t cut it.
@ necroking
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.”
Is this new? Is this a command having force of law? (Hint: King of Kings, Lord of Lords)
If it is not new, why would it be called a new command?
You missed what I was calling sin. Only the words that result in hell fire. If God’s going to send you to hell for it, it’s a sin.
I do not say that it is a sin to call someone a fool. But it can be a sin.
“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
You don’t even know the basics.
@SirHamster
*”“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.”……….Is this new? Is this a command having force of law? (Hint: King of Kings, Lord of Lords)…….If it is not new, why would it be called a new command?”*………………….end quote
Now I know why AT says it’s pointless to argue with you….are you really that dense that you can’t understand what I’ve been saying?
Does this so called “new commandment” contradict what was written in the Old Testament?, of course it doesn’t, so why are you positing a totally retarded straw man argument?
Rom 13:8 “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law”
So how is this “new”?
Also, show me where non fulfillment of this “new commandment” results in some new sin that transgresses the LAW…..I’ll give you a hint, it doesn’t.
The whole point we’ve been laboring to show people is not whether there is something “new” in point of time, but whether that something “new” contradicts what was written/or adds some sin that didn’t exist previously
*”I do not say that it is a sin to call someone a fool. But it can be a sin”*…….end quote
Make up your mind, is it a sin to call someone a fool or isn’t it?
Typical case of a man wanting his cake and eating it
This next quote from you, truly establishes you as being the “fool” that AT and Boxer thinks you are:
*”“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”……You don’t even know the basics”*……………end quote
I’ll begin my refutation of your idiocy by quoting it properly from the KJV, and not some perverted translation:
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”
Tell me my slow witted friend, what constitutes the sin of ADULTERY?, when does ADULTERY occur in order to be charged by God for the sin of ADULTERY???
Do you even have a clue in what ADULTERY is?
Going by the comments in this thread, it appears NO ONE has a clue what constitutes adultery except AT and myself
ADULTERY can ONLY occur in God’s eyes IF a man has sex with a woman who belongs to someone else, i.e married to a man, or when a woman breaks wedlock with her husband to have sex with any other man, that is not her husband, Lev 18:20, Ezekiel 16:38, Jeremiah 19:23
Now get this through your thick skulls, a married man having sex with a single un married women is NOT adultery, a single man having sex with an un married woman is NOT adultery……This is how it was possible for a man in the OT to have multiple wives AT THE SAME TIME, and not be accused of cheating on her, it was because he isn’t taking another man’s PROPERTY…….adultery as defined by God Himself is THEFT of another man’s property…….Let that sink in for all the cuckservitudes out there, that women have no agency of themselves, they belong to men
Now that is GOD’S definition of what constitutes adultery, it ain’t mine
This is why the anti-masturbators, and pagan RC anti-sexual ascetics in here are so desperate to change what Christ said in Matthew 5 and claim that Christ said FORNICATION, when He didn’t
These lying Devils know they can’t accuse men of sinning when they wank if Christ said ADULTERY so they LIE and say Christ said “fornication” so that ALL WOMEN are included in the “lust after” part of the phrase
But Jesus nails them to the wall, by saying that ADULTERY has occurred in a man’s heart, he doesn’t say fornication, yet the Greek word for fornication was available to Christ at the time that he said these words in Matthew….the reason he didn’t say it is because Jesus is quoting an Old Testament LAW: “Ye have heard that it was said BY THEM OF OLD TIME, Thou shalt not commit adultery”
Nowhere is there an OT law preceded by the phrase “Thou shalt not” concerning fornication, NONE WHATSOEVER
It is a serious sin to change what GOD says in his word to fit your own wicked agenda
Game over @SirHamster, lock, stock and barrel
Dear Necro King:
Please see inside text…
Not only is he an incomprehensibly stupid attention whore, but SirHamster is also a masochist. Note that he admits as much, above…
Because I am a glutton for punishment…
What minuscule morsel of self-awareness prompted this rare sputtering of truth, from the liars filthy mouth, was just as quickly consumed and he walled up the comment section with another stream-of-consciousness kook rant.
Snip all your salient points, that SirHamster won’t even bother to read, much less understand. Such people are generally motivated by childhood mistreatment, at the hands of a father figure. SirHamster loves this form of interaction, because he waxes nostalgic at the thought that he can goad us into abusing him in the same fashion as dear old dad used to. Trying to illustrate your point of view never works, because he’s fundamentally dishonest. He’s not here to argue. He’s merely here to be abused, because that’s the only way he can feel like he matters.
All this aside, what’s most disturbing about his deranged behavior is evident in this thread, as he ass-licks, in sequence, people who he wants to drag into his meaningless and neurotic conflict. Gunner Q and Cane Caldo are two of many, who have yet to come to the damsel’s aid. No matter. SirHamster will let *anyone* take the fall for his insane behavior, so long as he thinks he can spread his own misery around to others. There’s nobody that he won’t betray or backstab if the opportunity arises. He’s propelled by an infantile mentality which eschews responsibility for his insane and inexcusable behavior.
This is his cue to draft another six responses, each more vacuous than the last, all consisting of childish “I know you are, but what am I?” propositions. Pee-Wee Herman had more class when he was dragged out of that pr0n cinema in Florida by the sheriff.
Best,
Boxer
@Boxer
Haha I like you Boxer…..You not only bring humor to the comment section, you are quite intelligent with your responses
Take care
Necroking48
@Jack Russel
Also, a few years ago the uneducated voted in a referendum to put toxic fluoride in water
Plus, the place is overrun with environmentalists, drug smoking hippies and beggars. I am grateful for the work however. And it is definitely warm 🙂
Oh, and the house prices are absolutely nuts. Are these people retarded??? 1 million for the “benchmark” house. No thanks.
@SirHamster
Less is more, midwit.
You accuse AT of being stupid. You have a spelling mistake in your accusation. You do see the irony, yes?
This is good advice to anyone contemplating a non-standard interpretation. But it is a caution, not a proof of wrongness. There were false teachings floating around in Paul’s time, in Jesus’s time even and before. Its not for nothing that Jesus condemned those teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.
It doesn’t matter how old your tradition is, just whether it is grounded in scripture or not.
With respect to sexual matters, things radically changed with the additions of the Greeks and the fall of Jerusalem. Western Christian teaching on sex has more to do with Greek beliefs than Hebrew ones.
@necroking
Why would you expect an addition to the LAW to result in a contradiction? There was a time when there was no LAW of Moses. When was the LAW of Moses added?
“But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”
You don’t think Jesus is right to call it a new commandment? Why would you think “new” means a contradiction?
“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
Make up your mind, is it sin to have sex with a woman or not?
Said in a totally non-self-serving way, no doubt.
@Dale
A mid-wit is a person with above average intelligence, so your paraphrase isn’t very accurate. It’s more of an accusation of overrating one’s own intellect.
I happened to copy Artisanal Toad’s spelling, so you can bring that up with him.
@SirHamster
>midwit, the person who is moderately more intelligent than average, and thus has had years of smoke blown up his ass about his relatively high intelligence
a) D’oh! I withdraw herewith my erroneous comment to you.
b) Yes, I see the irony in my having pointed out your error to you, in error (myself). 🙂
Dale Says, about Cranbrook BC:
I was just looking at housing prices, and they don’t seem to be that bad. I can get a basic starter house for around 250k, which translates to about 200 USD. This is comparable to prices in Coeur d’Alene or Missoula.
Are you sure that you don’t mean Vancouver? That’s the place where housing prices are too inflated to believe. Chinese investors combined with the scarcity of land (the city is hemmed in on one side by the border, and the other by the mountains) put incredible pressure on prices.
About the Cranbrook hippies… It’s not as bad here as it is around Creston, Nelson, Balfour and in all the other little towns around Kootenay Lake. I kinda like the old timers, but I sympathize all the same.
Boxer
“The Greek has γυναῖκα, which, whilst it could refer to a wife, usually just meant a woman simpliciter. If Christ really had meant to refer specifically to already-married women rather than women in general, he’d have used a more specific term, such as ἄλοχον.”
The word ἄλοχον does not seem to appear in the New Testament, at least as far as I was able to determine from Bible Works and other tools. It doesn’t even appear in BDAG, the standard NT lexicon. It appears to be ancient Greek, not koine. Everywhere that the context dictates a married woman, the word γυναῖκα is used.
Of course παρθενος (parthenos) is used specifically for “virgin”. In 1 Cor 7:32-34 Paul uses ἄγαμος to refer to unmarried men and women and γαμέω (in nominative participle form) to refer to married men and married women.
@Fred Gilham
So what exactly are you trying to say?
Keep posing as the AMOG Secret King AT. It will make you feel better in your mom’s basement.
2 Laura Crofts and one female Braniac decided you were the best they could do? Yeah, right!
“So what exactly are you trying to say?”
I was responding to someone who said that if Jesus wanted to talk about married women specifically, he could have used the word ἄλοχον. That word doesn’t appear to be part of the vocabulary current at Jesus’ time.
Last point I would like to make is about the issue of masturbation. This thing is not a male thing , it is a male and female thing since God made us all sexual , and not only men as all the YT charlatans love to teach .
To be honest , I personally practiced this thing as a teen age girl , but this only added to my frustration of never having sex . Masturbation is not the remedy to our sexual desires . It is frustrating and incomplete . We feel doing this thing that something is missing . Yes , the other gender is missing because sex was meant for ONENESS , for the union of the two sexes that God designed and created in his mysterious plan for us. Sex is meant for oneness , not for loneliness.
Masturbation can never bring the deep joy of a real sexual bond.
The Bible never puts masturbation in the list of sexual sins , however it cannot be a sexual outlet because sex is for being one flesh . You cannot be one flesh with yourself !
It is not a sin when you are single because you still own your own body but it is something that makes you unsatisfied and bitter.
If masturbation was ok , then why did God make the woman for the man ? Why did not he say to Adam that he just had to take his hands to have his sexual needs met ? And why would the Bible urge people to marry if they burn ? Why does not it tell them just to masturbate and that’s it ??
Porn and masturbation , virtual sex and loneliness are a product of our feminized degenerate society where men have become unable to CONTROL women sexually and possess the female body . They have forsaken the natural use of the female ( Romans 1) because they have let women go free ride and taste the poisoned delight of free sex.
Thus , those (like Necro king if I ‘m not mistaken) who advocate masturbation within marriage IF (satanic if again) a husband has a wife who refuses him have it ALL WRONG sorry to say.
First of all , they encourage men to partake in the sin of their wife (my body my choice) and do exactly the same for themselves ( if I masturbate it is because I own my genitals , no one else does).
See how they encourage husbands to fall with their wives instead of standing up to their sinful behaviour ? Instead of using the rightful authority they have over their wife’s body (and not theirs) , they take back control of their own body . They do exactly what the wife does because a wife who thinks she can withhold her body without her husband’s permission thinks SHE and not he has a right over her body.
Masturbation in marriage and withholding sex by yourself come down to the same : HOW can you do that if you have no power over your own body ?
Actually , the truth is withholding sex on one’s own and masturbating are IMPOSSIBLE according to God’s paradigm for marriage.
Those who do that or advocate that have already taken back control of what does not belong to them anymore : it is like a theft , a violation of God’s will for marriage. They live like a celibate , not like a married person anymore.
So , if a husband does not want to fall with a rebellious wife , he has to STOP her from being in control of her own body by using the power HE and only HE has over it .
He has to POSSESS the female body and everything will be fine , for him and for her . Because doing that , he saves TWO people from temptations , not just himself.
All those who advocate something else than what is clearly written are just doing the will of the devil , sorry to say.
The Bible never contemplates the witholding sex nonsense even once because the rule of marriage is sex and this rule can only be broken with the consent of BOTH spouses .
Pingback: Still going. | Dalrock
Pingback: Still going. | Dalrock - Top