A re-examination of nothing

[savedandhappy1]

Then by your reasoning, Jesus himself was sinning, because he stayed single. Your argument does not make sense.

You read the scriptures right?

You see where it talks about staying single, BUT IF YOU CAN'T EXERCISE SELF-CONTROL, then you should marry.

Jesus spoke of man leaving parents and taking a wife, just like God created them male and female, and told them to go forth and multiple. Jesus spoke of eunuchs, and the different kinds of eunuchs.

Common sense would say that if He felt it was important enough to speak of marriage between a man and a female, and the 3 kinds of eunuchs, that if another type of marriage or single person was excepted by God.................. it would have come up.

Also, like I mentioned in another thread Bishops/pastors are to be the husbands of one wife, and deacons are the same. Why would hetrosexuals be the only ones with rules/standards to hold these offices in the church?

 

[Phinehas2]

As Jesus says even looking at another woman lustfully is committing adultery in ones heart, I don't think we can say masturbation isn't a sin.
SavedandHappy1 is right, the proof has been given and once again rejected.

 

[savedandhappy1]

That is what you take out of it, but there isn't any proof that masturbation defines sexual immorality. There are plenty of Christians that don't believe masturbation is a sin, James Dobson (who I highly disagree with on homosexuality), is one of them.

So???

Like mentioning James Dobson is supposed to make me say well then it doesn't matter what the scriptures say or what I feel the Holy Spirit says?

Kind of sterotyping again aren't we? So what if Mr. Dobson is a conservative/ fundamenalist, God gave me a brain and I think He wanted me to use it. Contrary to what so many think no everyone who is considered conservative/fundamenalist is also closed minded or double minded.

If we arent' to burn with passion but we are to marry if we can't control that, then where would the masturbation come in at. If we mastrubated wouldn't that relieve the burning with passion? So shouldn't it say if you have no self control and masturbation doesn't help get married?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear savednadhappy1,
If it isnt James Dobson held up against the word of God its a college chaplain

 

[Chaplain David]

So you believe masturbation is a sin? (Just a quick question, not intended to start a long, off-topic discussion.)

Masturbation is definitely a sin under certain circumstances.

• Premarital masturbation is the same as having sex out of wedlock because the person doing it is usually fantasizing about another person.
• Masturbation while married but fantasizing about a person that one is not married to is equivalent to adultery.
• Homosexual masturbation is a sin because the practice of homosexuality is sin.

For Bible believing Christians the Bible is the only proof in these matters and no amount of spitting and sputtering weak arguments and questions challenging the veracity of Scripture is valid arguing as nothing can come against something as great as God's written word.

I do not plan on offering proof or rebuttal other than to say that these subjects are addressed in Scripture because I don't have the time to reiterate what has been said repeatedly and believed by Christians the world over and have it rebutted by "prove to me where it says that ......or your translation is wrong because...etc." which will in turn cause another flurry of your proof isn't accurate, prove to me that....

I don't need to prove it to anyone who is trying to discount it or give it meanings that are not there. What's important is that I accept it myself and I do.

I hope everyone has a nice day.

Two bibles I highly recommend are NKJV and NASB. George Lamsa's translation is pretty good.

 

[davedjy]

So???

Like mentioning James Dobson is supposed to make me say well then it doesn't matter what the scriptures say or what I feel the Holy Spirit says?

Kind of sterotyping again aren't we? So what if Mr. Dobson is a conservative/ fundamenalist, God gave me a brain and I think He wanted me to use it. Contrary to what so many think no everyone who is considered conservative/fundamenalist is also closed minded or double minded.

If we arent' to burn with passion but we are to marry if we can't control that, then where would the masturbation come in at. If we mastrubated wouldn't that relieve the burning with passion? So shouldn't it say if you have no self control and masturbation doesn't help get married?

Adding sins to the Bible not specifically mentioned, is adding to the Bible. The Bible lists specifically what is and isn't a sin. You have not properly demonstrated that masturbation is a sin. The verse you posted doesn't prove anything except that if one wants to be with a woman, they should marry. Masturbation STILL does not replace a man or woman's desire to be with another person, and that verse was not aimed at masturbation.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Dear savednadhappy1,
If it isnt James Dobson held up against the word of God its a college chaplain

Me still going with the word of God.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear savedandhappy1
Me too

 

[davedjy]

Me still going with the word of God.

The point is your interpretation of the Word is not fact, as other believers do not see things the way you do.
I never claimed that James Dobson is above the word of God, but he does hold a conservative view on most subject matters like yourself.

Going with the Word of God, also demands you show specifically where a sin is mentioned, you have failed to demonstrate this.

 

[Phinehas2]

No Davedjy this isnt interpretation.
Genesis 2 says for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.
before I give you my interpretation of the verse, do you accept that the verse I am about to interpret says what I have quoted?

 

[davedjy]

No Davedjy this isnt interpretation.
Genesis 2 says for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.
before I give you my interpretation of the verse, do you accept that the verse I am about to interpret says what I have quoted?

Irrelevant. There isn't any point with interpreting it, since it won't prove what you are trying to demonstrate. There isn't any acrobatic circus stunt that could be pulled off for that one.

Besides, we've seen this verse posted here with "interpretations" *ad nauseam*.

 

[Floatingaxe]

I most certainly have presented evidence from the Bible in response to your argument in the OP. You point out that there are zero verses in the Bible that "countenance" same-sex unions. I have responded that there are zero verses in the Bible that condemn same-sex marriages, and zero verses that condemn gay people. The question is how you interpret the silence of the Bible on same-sex marriage and on gay people.

For you and others to assume that silence equals condemnation is to read your beliefs into the silence of the Bible about same-sex marriage and about gay people. You cannot assume that silence equals condemnation, because it does not.

Since the Bible is entirely silent about same-sex marriage and about gay people, never condemning either, how might we understand God's will in this area? I think we must look to the teachings of Jesus himself. And his essential teachings are these: that we shall love God and love our neighbor.

Therefore, the proper way for Christians to treat gay people is to love gay people, not point fingers at gay people or make pronouncements about our condemnation, which neither Jesus nor the Bible ever called for.

I have given you this explanation a number of times now, and you refuse to accept it. Apparently you believe that the Bible never mentioning same-sex marriage must mean that God condemns it, since that is what you apparently believe, and you imagine God to harbor all the beliefs and prejudices and ideas about the world that you do. You appear to create your idea of God in your own image.

If homosexuality condemns a person before Almighty God, then you can safely assume He will condemn you for living as a couple in a homosexual pseudo-marriage! He doesn't mention it in scripture because He already mentioned thebehaviour it is based on is an abomination!

We need to get real here, folks! The argument that God never mentions same-sex marriage is extremely childish and not worthy of debate.

Hence the title of this thread!

 

[Chaplain David]

Irrelevant. There isn't any point with interpreting it, since it won't prove what you are trying to demonstrate. There isn't any acrobatic circus stunt that could be pulled off for that one.

Besides, we've seen this verse posted here with "interpretations" *ad nauseam*.

What I glean from all of your arguments is that it does not appear that you are willing to accept any proof regardless of what is presented. But it may be interesting to you if you are indeed openminded about what many of us believe about our Holy Bibles to read what goes into translating and compiling one. I listed the NIV Study Bible preface that details that at http://christianforums.com/t6846042...exuals-or-others-to-be-christian.html&page=11

 

[Floatingaxe]

The point is your interpretation of the Word is not fact, as other believers do not see things the way you do.
I never claimed that James Dobson is above the word of God, but he does hold a conservative view on most subject matters like yourself.

Going with the Word of God, also demands you show specifically where a sin is mentioned, you have failed to demonstrate this.

We have discussed what the Bible says is sin and you just turn a blind eye to it. This is no longer a debate. A debate ceases when the truth is raised about an issue. The loser is supposed to accept graciously. You do not do that. Instead the pro-homosexuality side continues to dig their heels in like stubborn children.

Now, we are continuing ad nauseum! *barf bag handy*

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

1 Cor 7:1-9
1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.
7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am;
9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Here we go, scriptures that prove God planned a man and woman should marry, because as we see in verse 2, each man should have their own wife and each woman should have her own husband.

Next we see, in verse 9, how if you can't control yourself you are to marry, not pleasure yourself.

Sorry but this does not demonstrate masturbation to be a sin. It simply refers to sexual immorality which everywhere else in scripture has been defined as acts involving others outside of marriage. Now, all throughout scripture, especially in the Levitcus 18 list of sexual "taboos" it bes saying in specific detail whats sin and nowhere bes it listed touching oneself bes sin ... NOWHERE. Now granted, one MIGHT argue the tired old chestnut that omission does not mean condoning -- as has been argued for other things that scripture bes not addressing direct like shooting heroin for example -- but the fact remains the sexual subject DOES bes covered in them scriptures and DOES bes gone into great detail, so to argue that way concerning omission in this case would be gratuitous for saying the least. If they bes taking great pains to spell out every possible configuration of incest and even such things as bestiality in Lev. 18 then they bes certain not to "miss" masturbation in the mix if it truly bes sin. But nowhere bes it mentioning. Nowhere bes them saying "thou shalt not touch thyself alone as one touches one's spouse in the bridal chamber; it bes abomination" or any such thing.

So unless you can bring from Scripture what specifically points to masturbation -- seeing as ALL OTHERS SEXUAL SINS bes specifically pointed out -- you cannot establish masturbation as a sin.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

As Jesus says even looking at another woman lustfully is committing adultery in ones heart, I don't think we can say masturbation isn't a sin.
SavedandHappy1 is right, the proof has been given and once again rejected.

Rubbish, no proof has been given, and not everyone masturbates to an image of some stupid human in their heads. For some it bes like scratching an itch to get the distraction out of the way so they can concentrate on other things. IF the lust in the heart bes sin, so bes it -- that bes separate affair, just like with ritual murder it bes them murder whats the crime, doing it "ritualistically" does not add to the crime but simply defines the motive. The lust in the heart would be there with or without the masturbatory act so if that bes the sin the masturbatory act neither erases it nor adds weight to it.

No proof has been given in that no scripture directly addressing masturbation and calling it sin -- UNLIKE ALL OTHER SCRIPTURAL SEXUAL TABOOS -- has been brought forth yet.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

What is meant is that God created woman for man to be in union, Satan tempted humans to disobey and now we know right from wrong, the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Satan doesnt have the power to alter creation, thats why the human species cant reproduce without male and female, but Satan can lead people to use God's creation in the wrong way.
But God is stronger thats why through the power of Jesus Christ people can follow God's created purposes.

OK well thanks at least for a sane and non-flaming answer.
Right from wrong bes human constructs. You don't likesy so you callsy wrong. You likesy so you callsy right. Then comes them whats twisting things trying to make hurting bes right and loving bes wrong. It givesy up ever understanding your lot, your species; they bes in disarray of self-serving contradictions them humans.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Sorry but this does not demonstrate masturbation to be a sin. It simply refers to sexual immorality which everywhere else in scripture has been defined as acts involving others outside of marriage. Now, all throughout scripture, especially in the Levitcus 18 list of sexual "taboos" it bes saying in specific detail whats sin and nowhere bes it listed touching oneself bes sin ... NOWHERE. Now granted, one MIGHT argue the tired old chestnut that omission does not mean condoning -- as has been argued for other things that scripture bes not addressing direct like shooting heroin for example -- but the fact remains the sexual subject DOES bes covered in them scriptures and DOES bes gone into great detail, so to argue that way concerning omission in this case would be gratuitous for saying the least. If they bes taking great pains to spell out every possible configuration of incest and even such things as bestiality in Lev. 18 then they bes certain not to "miss" masturbation in the mix if it truly bes sin. But nowhere bes it mentioning. Nowhere bes them saying "thou shalt not touch thyself alone as one touches one's spouse in the bridal chamber; it bes abomination" or any such thing.

So unless you can bring from Scripture what specifically points to masturbation -- seeing as ALL OTHERS SEXUAL SINS bes specifically pointed out -- you cannot establish masturbation as a sin.

Touching self is not a sin, but if it is done as a sexual expression it is a sin. It involves the MIND. There is a point at which fantasy or unwholesome thoughts enter the picture. That is where it becomes lewd and sinful. We are to control our thoughts and cast vile imaginations (lust) out.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Moriah_Conquering_wind,
Ok lets put it this way. As Chistians are taught self contol, ie 1 Cor 7 and that looking lustfully at another woman is commiting adultery in one's heart, that would suggest masturbation is not self control and the thoughts causing touching yourself are sinful.
Perhaps you could know explain why masturbation might not be sinful?

 

[savedandhappy1]

Sorry but this does not demonstrate masturbation to be a sin. It simply refers to sexual immorality which everywhere else in scripture has been defined as acts involving others outside of marriage. Now, all throughout scripture, especially in the Levitcus 18 list of sexual "taboos" it bes saying in specific detail whats sin and nowhere bes it listed touching oneself bes sin ... NOWHERE. Now granted, one MIGHT argue the tired old chestnut that omission does not mean condoning -- as has been argued for other things that scripture bes not addressing direct like shooting heroin for example -- but the fact remains the sexual subject DOES bes covered in them scriptures and DOES bes gone into great detail, so to argue that way concerning omission in this case would be gratuitous for saying the least. If they bes taking great pains to spell out every possible configuration of incest and even such things as bestiality in Lev. 18 then they bes certain not to "miss" masturbation in the mix if it truly bes sin. But nowhere bes it mentioning. Nowhere bes them saying "thou shalt not touch thyself alone as one touches one's spouse in the bridal chamber; it bes abomination" or any such thing.

So unless you can bring from Scripture what specifically points to masturbation -- seeing as ALL OTHERS SEXUAL SINS bes specifically pointed out -- you cannot establish masturbation as a sin.

Last part of post #504 touches on this.