Is It Sinful to Use Sex Toys? Are Vibrators & [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] a Sin?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reeniee

Newbie
Jul 22, 2012
210
60
✟9,027.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Greens
All strong appetite, desire and emotion (whether fear, joy, anger, despair, contrition or whatever), and whether expressed or suppressed, is a sign of narcissism and arrogance

Wait, fear and despair are signs of arrogance and narcissism? That sounds highly unlikely, or that a really unhelpful definition of some of these words is being used.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I have actually read statistics on this and it appears that there are some effects. The person's background (including religious background) has more of an effect on subsequent sexual behavior than the pledge per se. People who pledge and are not in a subculture that reinforces it tend to revert to whatever the norm is. On the other hand, people who pledge and remember that they have done so (not all do ^_^) tend to delay first intercourse by 18 months, engage in alternative sexual behaviors at a higher rate, and be at higher risk for STDs and pregnancy.

Well just look at the pecadillos that arose to become almost mainstream during the Victorian era. Repression can backfire with some ironic consequences.

As a counter example, I offer my wife and me. We both had fairly wild and, shall we say "adventurous" youths. Now we're so thoroughly vanilla we could be in a textbook of average. And we're perfectly happy. Anecdotally, most of the people I know involved in wilder stuff now they are older are also the people who had particularly chaste younger periods. I'm not claiming it's always the case, but in my personal circle, there're enough examples to note a distinct trend in that direction.

edit: Oh, and just IMHO, I don't care that my wife has some experiences from before she met me. She's with me now. She chose to be with me, which, to me, seems preferable to some girl with no basis for comparison getting stuck with the first guy she mistook hormones for love with.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
D

DiligentlySeekingGod

Guest
There is absolutely nothing wrong with staying sexually pure before and after marriage. In fact, it is scriptural to do so. I realize that means nothing to many others who are also posting in this thread, professing Christian or not, but it does matter in light of what is pleasing and accepting before God. And that is what should matter to a Christian above all else. Therefore, all of the advice given on this matter which is clearly contrary to the teaching of Scripture, whether given by someone who professes to be a Christian or not, should not even be considered, especially by the young lady who wrote the OP.
 
Upvote 0

Reeniee

Newbie
Jul 22, 2012
210
60
✟9,027.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Greens
There is absolutely nothing wrong with staying sexually pure before and after marriage. In fact, it is scriptural to do so. I realize that means nothing to many others who are also posting in this thread, professing Christian or not, but it does matter in light of what is pleasing and accepting before God. And that is what should matter to a Christian above all else. Therefore, all of the advice given on this matter which is clearly contrary to the teaching of Scripture, whether given by someone who professes to be a Christian or not, should not even be considered, especially by the young lady who wrote the OP.

What counts as "sexually pure" to the point that it's desirably both before and after marriage? In a practical sense, what does this actually mean?
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
DiligentlySeekingGod said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with staying sexually pure before and after marriage. In fact, it is scriptural to do so. I realize that means nothing to many others who are also posting in this thread, professing Christian or not, but it does matter in light of what is pleasing and accepting before God. And that is what should matter to a Christian above all else. Therefore, all of the advice given on this matter which is clearly contrary to the teaching of Scripture, whether given by someone who professes to be a Christian or not, should not even be considered, especially by the young lady who wrote the OP.

The teaching of the scripture is if you rape a girl, you can buy the victim for money. Pardon me if I condemn your beliefs and their disgusting ramifications.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
 
Upvote 0

Darkhorse

just horsing around
Aug 10, 2005
10,078
3,977
mid-Atlantic
Visit site
✟288,141.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The teaching of the scripture is if you rape a girl, you can buy the victim for money. Pardon me if I condemn your beliefs and their disgusting ramifications.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

I don't know...forcing a rapist to "buy" his victim and never divorce her sounds like pretty severe punishment. Prison might be better!

(Tongue-in-cheek - this doesn't take the woman's feelings into account at all) :(
 
Upvote 0

Inkachu

Bursting with fruit flavor!
Jan 31, 2008
35,357
4,217
Somewhere between Rivendell and Rohan
✟62,966.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The teaching of the scripture is if you rape a girl, you can buy the victim for money. Pardon me if I condemn your beliefs and their disgusting ramifications.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

He was actually forced to pay the girl's father restitution and then marry the girl and was not permitted to divorce her, ever, for any reason. This was so the girl would have security and be provided for (since she would no longer be marriage-material as a non-virgin), and the man would have to take responsibility for having violated her.

It's always sadly comical to me, when people who don't believe the Bible, go burrowing through it oh-so-thoroughly, desperately looking for verses to cherry pick to support their condemnation of Christianity. Not to mention that anyone with even a basic knowledge of Christianity knows that the Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians and hasn't for two thousand years (Romans 6:14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.)

I mean, if you think it's a bunch of nonsense, then get your drawers all in a knot trying to use it to argue over things you don't even believe... that would be like me frothing at the mouth trying to argue the Quran with a bunch of Muslims. :doh:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KitKatMatt

stupid bleeding heart feminist liberal
May 2, 2013
5,818
1,602
✟29,520.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
He was actually forced to pay the girl's father restitution and then marry the girl and was not permitted to divorce her, ever, for any reason. This was so the girl would have security and be provided for (since she would no longer be marriage-material as a non-virgin), and the man would have to take responsibility for having violated her.

I would totally feel secure being forced to marry someone who raped me.

/heavy sarcasm
 
Upvote 0

Gadarene

-______-
Apr 16, 2012
11,461
2,507
London
✟75,247.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Labour
It's always sadly comical to me, when people who don't believe the Bible, go burrowing through it oh-so-thoroughly, desperately looking for verses to cherry pick to support their condemnation of Christianity. Not to mention that anyone with even a basic knowledge of Christianity knows that the Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians and hasn't for two thousand years (Romans 6:14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.)

Except for all the bits about teh gays because REASONS ^_^

We know you think the Mosaic law doesn't apply to you. The problem is more that the same god you worship didn't have enough of a clue to realise that a rape victim might not be over the moon about having to marry their attacker.

I mean, if you think it's a bunch of nonsense, then get your drawers all in a knot trying to use it to argue over things you don't even believe... that would be like me frothing at the mouth trying to argue the Quran with a bunch of Muslims. :doh:

Gosh, because Christians never do that. ^_^
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,710
1,181
53
Down in Mary's Land
✟29,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I would totally feel secure being forced to marry someone who raped me.

/heavy sarcasm

The rabbis interpreted this marriage as something that the rapist was obliged to offer but not something the victim was obliged to accept. The fine, on the other hand, was mandatory (and then there was a lot on under what conditions it goes to the woman as opposed to her father...).
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Inkachu said:
He was actually forced to pay the girl's father restitution and then marry the girl and was not permitted to divorce her, ever, for any reason. This was so the girl would have security and be provided for (since she would no longer be marriage-material as a non-virgin), and the man would have to take responsibility for having violated her.

:0

Are you seriously defending the idea that rape victims had to marry their rapists? Are you seriously advocating that it rape victims received security through their rapists? Are you seriously advocating that women are property to be purchased from their fathers? Are you seriously promoting that marriage between a rapist and his victim is him taking "responsibility"? Are you seriously saying that non-virgins are not "marriage" material?

Seriously, even the most ardent bible-thumpers usually don't defend this stuff. It's wicked, awful, depraved, horrid, misogynistic, etc.

It's always sadly comical to me, when people who don't believe the Bible, go burrowing through it oh-so-thoroughly, desperately looking for verses to cherry pick to support their condemnation of Christianity. Not to mention that anyone with even a basic knowledge of Christianity knows that the Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians and hasn't for two thousand years (Romans 6:14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.)

"For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -- Jesus

I mean, if you think it's a bunch of nonsense, then get your drawers all in a knot trying to use it to argue over things you don't even believe... that would be like me frothing at the mouth trying to argue the Quran with a bunch of Muslims.

When people stop teaching this harmful, damaging nonsense to young people, then I'll stop explaining why it's wrong. And I'll do the same for Muslims who are taught even worse lessons about sex/marriage/relationships.
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Joykins said:
The rabbis interpreted this marriage as something that the rapist was obliged to offer but not something the victim was obliged to accept. The fine, on the other hand, was mandatory (and then there was a lot on under what conditions it goes to the woman as opposed to her father...).

"and she must become his wife because he violated her"

I'm glad the rabbis had better sense than the scripture, but it doesn't change the text.
 
Upvote 0

KitKatMatt

stupid bleeding heart feminist liberal
May 2, 2013
5,818
1,602
✟29,520.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The rabbis interpreted this marriage as something that the rapist was obliged to offer but not something the victim was obliged to accept. The fine, on the other hand, was mandatory (and then there was a lot on under what conditions it goes to the woman as opposed to her father...).

I'm glad to hear that it wasn't mandatory, but it's still incredibly frightening for me to think about.

Especially because of the person taking it lightly on this thread. "Security" and "providing" my butt, I would be terrified to be in the same house as someone who has in any way molested, assaulted, or raped me.
 
Upvote 0

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,710
1,181
53
Down in Mary's Land
✟29,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
"and she must become his wife because he violated her"

I'm glad the rabbis had better sense than the scripture, but it doesn't change the text.

It's in the Talmud.

Mordechai Torczyner's WebShas - Intelligent Topical Index to the Talmud: Tort Law: Rape and Seduction - Oness and Mifateh

Obligation for a Rapist to Marry His Victim

Whether a rapist is able to divorce the wife he is obligated to marry: Temurah 4b-5a
Considering violation of the prohibition against him divorcing her a transgression which can be corrected with a positive action by re-marrying her: Makkot 15a, 16a; Temurah 4b
The punishment for a rapist who marries and divorces his victim, if he is a Kohen: Temurah 4b
Receiving lashes if he divorces her: Makkot 15a, 16a; Temurah 4b
Her ability to decline the marriage: Makkot 16a
What happens if the rapist accepts an offer of marriage on her behalf: Makkot 16a
What happens if the rapist vows never to marry her, with a vow which cannot be repealed: Makkot 16a​
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,710
1,181
53
Down in Mary's Land
✟29,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The Talmud doesn't change the original text, it just re-interprets it. My point stands.

It's insight as to what the people who actually use the law (text) understand it to mean. And how do you distinguish re-interpret from interpret, here? Certainly a modern context-free interpretation is a more novel one ^_^
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Joykins said:
It's insight as to what the people who actually use the law (text) understand it to mean. And how do you distinguish re-interpret from interpret, here? Certainly a modern context-free interpretation is a more novel one

Laughing emoticon or not, we can read the text in its original, Hebrew format and ascertain the meaning (unlike other more difficult passages). That the Talmud teaching about the verse does not agree with the actual text is what results in "re-interpreting."
 
Upvote 0

Inkachu

Bursting with fruit flavor!
Jan 31, 2008
35,357
4,217
Somewhere between Rivendell and Rohan
✟62,966.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would totally feel secure being forced to marry someone who raped me.

/heavy sarcasm

If you were living in Israel a few thousand years ago, in a culture that believed that you could not marry and had no rights if you weren't a virgin, then the arrangement - while far from ideal - was for your own protection and provision. There really weren't any alternatives, unless you wanted to become a prostitute on the street.

Sheesh people, use the brains God gave you. Nobody is saying this was a LOVELY circumstance to find yourself in, but it was done at the time so that the girl would have a home, food, clothes; you know, all those pesky things you need to live and not die. Go on and throw your sarcasm at me, as if I were alive 3,000 years ago and I personally made all the rules *eyeroll*.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Inkachu

Bursting with fruit flavor!
Jan 31, 2008
35,357
4,217
Somewhere between Rivendell and Rohan
✟62,966.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
:0

Are you seriously defending the idea that rape victims had to marry their rapists? Are you seriously advocating that it rape victims received security through their rapists? Are you seriously advocating that women are property to be purchased from their fathers? Are you seriously promoting that marriage between a rapist and his victim is him taking "responsibility"? Are you seriously saying that non-virgins are not "marriage" material?

Who's defending? Who's advocating? Who's promoting? My gosh, I was giving a mini history lesson. I was explaining the passage. Did I say I agreed with it? Promoted it? Defended it? Good lord, get your undies out of the knot they're in.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.