Is Using a Fleshlight a Sin? Can Christains Use Sex Toys?

[ghendricks63]

I understand what you mean but since it's so different to what you hear in church it's hard to accept somehow. And I don't think that God advocates having multiples wives. The bible also says that a man will leave his parents and then be one flesh with his wife. I think that God simply tolerated many things in the old testament which were not really the way he liked it simply because the people didn't know it any better but I wouldn't conclude from this that one can have multiple wives like David.

/As for lusting
When you think this through then you could walk around on the street and look after every beautiful woman you walk by and imagine having sex with her and it would not be a sin because even if they are married then you cannot know this. The only thing which would be a sin would be to imagine sex with a married woman and everything else would not be a sin. But if you embraced lustful thoughts in such a way and thought about sex then your thoughts would become more and more unclean and you'd probably think about sex all day. I think this would not end good.
And the bible also says to only think about that which is pure. I dont think that imagining having sex with an imaginary woman or a real woman which isnt married is pure.

But I also think that lusting after a woman isn't adultery unless of course you are married. Taking what Jesus said and then saying if a teenager lusts after a classmate then he's committing adultery is totally silly and I don't think that Jesus meant that because he was talking about adultery and telling the people that adultery is not just cheating on your wife but already wanting to cheat on her without actually doing it. This also makes sense. The intention alone is already enough. But then saying everybody who lusts after a woman is an adulterer is reading more into the text than there is.

edit:
I just looked up the verse and Jesus said everyone or whosoever. This sounds like he refers to anybody and not just married men otherwise he would have said every married man who looks at a woman with lust.

bible.cc/matthew/5-28.htm

You're still equating normal sexual thoughts with lusting. Remember...coveting is the same source. In the end it comes down to you. Live in the bondage of false teaching or embrace the freedom that proper scriptural understanding provides. You will always find those who tell you nearly anything and everything is a sin. Pay them no heed. For them it is sin because they believe it to be so. Whether you choose to live in freedom or stay in bondage is really a choice only you can make.

 

[Jim Bob]

Okay, let's say you're right then there is still the question what are normal sexual thoughts and what are sinful sex thoughts? I mean let's say you see a beautiful woman in a shop and then you get wild fantasies about having sex with her and so on then where is the line between normal and carnality? It can't be that you can basically imagine anything you want to even totally carnal stuff like you see in inappropriate content movies. And I bet the woman also wouldn't like this if you asked her wether you can imagine having sex with her.

 

[ghendricks63]

Okay, let's say you're right then there is still the question what are normal sexual thoughts and what are sinful sex thoughts? I mean let's say you see a beautiful woman in a shop and then you get wild fantasies about having sex with her and so on then where is the line between normal and carnality? It can't be that you can basically imagine anything you want to even totally carnal stuff like you see in inappropriate content movies. And I bet the woman also wouldn't like this if you asked her wether you can imagine having sex with her.

As I said...only you can choose to live in freedom and stop calling sinful what God created in you and proclaimed to be good. I am not suggesting that you spend every moment of every day thinking nothing but sexual thoughts. (Though for a teenage guy this is pretty close to normal...lol) I am simply suggesting that you stop seeing what is normal as sin.

 

[Jim Bob]

I think one problem is definitely that once the mind isn't innocent anymore you can also think sinful things. For example when I was 13 I could never have thought things which I can think now simply because I had never seen them and also didn't know that they even exist. But once you've seen filthy things then your mind also gets poisoned so there clearly is a difference between a young man who grew up without TV and internet and has never seen anything obscene and filthy and somebody who has. Such a person most likely isn't even capable of thinking a lot of sinful sexual thoughts so in this case I think what you say could apply but for me it would be hard to distinguish between normal sexual thoughts and sinful sexual thoughts so I don't know if trying to find liberation by not trying to suppress them might not be dangerous because what if I find myself thinking stuff which simply is sinful?
I agree with you that it's unhealthy to be under too much restriction and to feel guilty for everything even things which can hardly be avoided. That will only drag you down but at the same time opening the gates and embracing sexual thoughts as normal could also enforce them. For example if a doctor told a teenager who wasn't allowed to eat sweets that sweets are okay then he'd probably eat nothing but sweets all day and this would sooner or later be really unhealthy.

 

[Jim Bob]

I'm trying to understand your position and still have open questions. So don't end this here. Answer my questions. Where is the line between normal sexual thoughts and sinful sexual thoughts? For example on many secular forums you find threads where somebody posts a pic of a woman either model or actress or somebody else who looks good and then you read replies like "I'd totally crush her" or "I'd smash her" implying that the person would like to treat her like a peace of meat and just hump the daylights out of her. Now you're not telling me that such fantasies are normal and not a sin right?

 

[ghendricks63]

I'm trying to understand your position and still have open questions. So don't end this here. Answer my questions. Where is the line between normal sexual thoughts and sinful sexual thoughts? For example on many secular forums you find threads where somebody posts a pic of a woman either model or actress or somebody else who looks good and then you read replies like "I'd totally crush her" or "I'd smash her" implying that the person would like to treat her like a peace of meat and just hump the daylights out of her. Now you're not telling me that such fantasies are normal and not a sin right?

The line is the law of love. This is the only line that matters. If we are acting in a way that is harmful to others then we have crossed the line. If we imagine sexual thoughts that would be harmful to others then they may be crossing the line as well. Personally...none of my fantasies involved harmful or destructive behaviors so for me they truly were/are harmless.

 

[Jim Bob]

The line is the law of love. This is the only line that matters. If we are acting in a way that is harmful to others then we have crossed the line. If we imagine sexual thoughts that would be harmful to others then they may be crossing the line as well. Personally...none of my fantasies involved harmful or destructive behaviors so for me they truly were/are harmless.

Okay, I wasn't really referring to harming others simply thinking about carnal,raw sex kinda like you see in inappropriate content. Now wouldn't that always be a sin? And of course you also cannot know if the person you think about would want to do this or not. Or does this not matter when you imagine that she totally enjoys whatever you fantasize about lol?

 

[ghendricks63]

Okay, I wasn't really referring to harming others simply thinking about carnal,raw sex kinda like you see in inappropriate content. Now wouldn't that always be a sin? And of course you also cannot know if the person you think about would want to do this or not. Or does this not matter when you imagine that she totally enjoys whatever you fantasize about lol?

I was speaking of thoughts, fantasies, etc. not actual contact. Remember the context of the thread.

 

[brightmorningstar]

lawtonfogle,

Did Jesus stone the woman who committed adultery? Are we not to be like Jesus?

What you have done once again is take the part of the sentence we both agree with and ask me whether I agree with it. The problem is for you, are we not also to be like Jesus in recognising it was sin and to sin no more?

As shown here, it is talking about sex outside of the marriage, when the marriage exist.

As shown here it is shown that sexual immorality in 1 Cor 7 and celibacy in Matthew 19 are the only alternatives to faithful man/woman marriage.
What have you shown to the contrary? Nothing.

 

[lawtonfogle]

lawtonfogle,

What you have done once again is take the part of the sentence we both agree with and ask me whether I agree with it. The problem is for you, are we not also to be like Jesus in recognising it was sin and to sin no more?

You answered neither when I asked if Jesus removed the death penalty for adultery.

As shown here it is shown that sexual immorality in 1 Cor 7 and celibacy in Matthew 19 are the only alternatives to faithful man/woman marriage.
What have you shown to the contrary? Nothing.

Yes I have. Premarital sex is another option. Merely, it results in becoming a faithful man/woman marriage the first time you have it. Back in Jesus' day, if you had sex before you were engaged/married, you were married. Thus, if you have premarital sex with one person, then a second person, the second time it was actually adultery.

 

[brightmorningstar]

lawtonfogle,

Yes I have. Premarital sex is another option. Merely, it results in becoming a faithful man/woman marriage the first time you have it. Back in Jesus' day, if you had sex before you were engaged/married, you were married. Thus, if you have premarital sex with one person, then a second person, the second time it was actually adultery.

Ok whilst I would agree it constitutes marriage, it therefore cannot be premarital sex, but maritial sex.

 

[lawtonfogle]

lawtonfogle,
Ok whilst I would agree it constitutes marriage, it therefore cannot be premarital sex, but maritial sex.

Perhaps, but then premarital sex doesn't even exist.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Lawtonfogle,

Perhaps, but then premarital sex doesn't even exist.

perhaps, but its still sex within a faithful man/woman marriage or sexual immorality.
The scripture speaks for itself.

 

[ghendricks63]

No one here has shown where the bible says that to have sex with someone means you are married to that person. Morality issue aside...this is only an opinion because there is simply no verse in the entire bible where this is stated.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ghendricks63

Oh quite the contrary. You simply refuse to acknowledge that scripture is NOT clear in every position you take.

As I said the scripture sepaks fpor itself, what it says it says and the position I take is either in line with it or contrary to it.
So why do you keep addressing the position I take instead of the scripture?

There are MANY examples of ambiguity and sexuality is most definitely one of them.

Again that’s your opinion, and it is contrary to what the scripture says. It is baseless. If you wish to discuss what the Bible says, quote what the Bible says and we can test your opinion against it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ghendricks63

No one here has shown where the bible says that to have sex with someone means you are married to that person.

They have shown where sexual immorality is where there isnt a man/wife union, so who cares as the question is answered.

 

[lawtonfogle]

No one here has shown where the bible says that to have sex with someone means you are married to that person. Morality issue aside...this is only an opinion because there is simply no verse in the entire bible where this is stated.

Two different places in the Old Testament, Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22. If you have premarital sex, the man has to pay the bride price and the female has to marry him. In Exodus, the word for 'virgin' or 'maiden' refers to a girl before she hits puberty, which is the only case where her father may forbid the marriage, but the man still pays as if he had married her.

 

[ghendricks63]

Two different places in the Old Testament, Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22. If you have premarital sex, the man has to pay the bride price and the female has to marry him. In Exodus, the word for 'virgin' or 'maiden' refers to a girl before she hits puberty, which is the only case where her father may forbid the marriage, but the man still pays as if he had married her.

Nope...it does not say that they are married once they have sex. These passages are dealing with property rights and what a virgin daughter was worth to her father. She was after all considered his property and as such had a property value. This command had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with theft...which is what it was considered. Since there were plenty of instances where marriage was not required...you cannot make the inference that this is what it means in these two passages.

Again...the passage does not say they are married upon the act of sex. This is simply your interpretation of what it means. I for one am glad we no longer live under the kind of "morality" where women are considered property.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Nope...it does not say that they are married once they have sex. These passages are dealing with property rights and what a virgin daughter was worth to her father. She was after all considered his property and as such had a property value. This command had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with theft...which is what it was considered. Since there were plenty of instances where marriage was not required...you cannot make the inference that this is what it means in these two passages.

Except for the point it says they were to be married. Saying he was her property is saying they were married.

Again...the passage does not say they are married upon the act of sex. This is simply your interpretation of what it means. I for one am glad we no longer live under the kind of "morality" where women are considered property.

Yes, our current ways are much better with all the social problems we are seeing. Either you take Christian morals or you take secular morals. Trying to mix the two gives you the wreck we see with Christians having higher divorce rates than others.

 

[ghendricks63]

Except for the point it says they were to be married. Saying he was her property is saying they were married.


Yes, our current ways are much better with all the social problems we are seeing. Either you take Christian morals or you take secular morals. Trying to mix the two gives you the wreck we see with Christians having higher divorce rates than others.

Nonsense...was she married to her father before the act of sex? Your conclusion does not follow logically.

And are you seriously suggesting that women as property is morally superior than today? That conclusion pretty much defies credibility. You can live under the law if you like and feel good about yourself. I'll take grace anyday. BTW - Under that "morally superior" system of law, you were allowed to beat a slave, and a wife, and if it took them a few days to die from it you were ok.