Masturbation

[revrobor]

The thread only has 13 pages, what are you talking about?

If you'll look in the lower right hand corner you will see this is page 51 (at least on my PC).

 

[Zebra1552]

If you'll look in the lower right hand corner you will see this is page 51.

Um...

Perhaps you don't have your options set to view 40 posts/page? It makes things much easier...

 

[cowboysfan1970]

You really need to catch up before posting, we are not talking about masturbation.

That's exactly what we are posting about. You seem to have just tried to derail it to cover homosexuality, lust, beastiality, prostitution, and even the sexual act itself. I stand by what I posted because you need to hear it and your logic is very incomplete and flawed. You seem to be sounding like a conspiracy theorist that just ask the same questions over and over again and again and curiously ignore any question or point that you either can't immediately counter or might discredit your point of view. You are running in circles by repeating the same statements over and over or denying that you posted something when you did, or at least your post had that intent or meaning.

 

[Zebra1552]

You really need to catch up before posting, we are not talking about masturbation.

Check the thread title.

 

[cowboysfan1970]

To me your posts indicate you are a couple of "Right Fighters" rather than seekers of truth. I haven't seen anything of substance in about 20 pages.

That is true, at least to a certain extent but sometimes you come across somebody that is really promoting something that is off the wall and you have to question them about it. Sometimes you have to really pick and prod to get to the bottom of things. It usually plays itsef out in the end.

 

[david_x]

The thread only has 13 pages, what are you talking about?

you misspelled 50.

 

[david_x]

That's exactly what we are posting about. You have just tried to derail it to cover homosexuality, lust, beastiality, prostitution, and even the sexual act itself. I stand by what I posted because you need to hear it and your logic is very incomplete and flawed. You are really sounding like a conspiracy theorist that just ask the same questions over and over again and again and curiously ignore any question or point that you either can't immediately counter or might discredit your point of view. You are running in circles by repeating the same statements over and over or denying that you posted something when you did, or at least your post had that intent or meaning.

I don't remember bringing up bestiality, but the rest were pertinent to the conversation.

 

[Zebra1552]

you misspelled 50.

Hey David, I've got a math question for you. What's 500/40?

 

[david_x]

For the benefit of all, let's try this from the top. There are a lot of points by a lot of people and I will try to address the core ones.

1. I will not argue that masturbation is in and of itself a sin, nor will I argue against it.
2. Lust, in it's negative sense, is a sin. Especially in the verb form. 1
3. Matt. 5:28 uses the negative sense of the word epithumia (Greek), or lust(English). 1 2 Matt. 5
4. Temptation is not a sin, though it births it. James 1:15
5. Lust is related to masturbation, more often than not it is in fact the cause(Speculation).

I think that covers it.

 

[david_x]

Hey David, I've got a math question for you. What's 500/40?

I saw your post, but you could have assumed that he was using the default if he said there was over 20 pages. (We didn't know about the option)

 

[cowboysfan1970]

I don't remember bringing up bestiality, but the rest were pertinent to the conversation.

David, I really don't think there's anything else I can post or any other points that I can bring up with you. You aren't putting anything out there that I haven't heard before, but the problem with that is that it's been put out there by people that have a very negative and hostile view towards sexuality in general. Now going by what you have posted, it would lead one to believe that you might share those beliefs. But, before I leave this because it's just not going anywhere, just what do you believe about sex, meaning just what do you think sexuality is for, what's sinful or not sinful about it, and why? I'm giving you a golden opportunity here to maybe clear up some misconceptions that some of us may have about what you believe.

 

[Zebra1552]

For the benefit of all, let's try this from the top. There are a lot of points by a lot of people and I will try to address the core ones.

1. I will not argue that masturbation is in and of itself a sin, nor will I argue against it.

Great.

2. Lust, in it's negative sense, is a sin. Especially in the verb form. 1

Several problems with this.

Firstly, our sexual desire is largely determined by hormones and how we develop, stuff we have no control over. It varies throughout life. Why would this be a sin?

Secondly, the Bible was not written in English, but in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Your definition does not fit with the Greek definition.

Finally, lust, if you take the Greek definition into account, is ALWAYS bad. It is desire that is not always bad. Context determines the meaning.

3. Matt. 5:28 uses the negative sense of the word epithumia (Greek), or lust(English). 1 2 Matt. 5

See above.

4. Temptation is not a sin, though it births it. James 1:15

How does this factor in? Like, at all?

5. Lust is related to masturbation, more often than not it is in fact the cause(Speculation).

You're right. That is speculation. And it requires a definition of lust, which for you right now is not biblical.

LUST & Adultery Math 5 and 19

 

[Zebra1552]

I saw your post, but you could have assumed that he was using the default if he said there was over 20 pages. (We didn't know about the option)

Why should I assume?

 

[david_x]

David, I really don't think there's anything else I can post or any other points that I can bring up with you. You aren't putting anything out there that I haven't heard before, but the problem with that is that it's been put out there by people that have a very negative and hostile view towards sexuality in general. Now going by what you have posted, it would lead one to believe that you might share those beliefs. But, before I leave this because it's just not going anywhere, just what do you believe about sex, meaning just what do you think sexuality is for, what's sinful or not sinful about it, and why? I'm giving you a golden opportunity here to maybe clear up some misconceptions that some of us may have about what you believe.

Since I have never addressed anything so broad, yet. I will.

1. Sex is a good and perfect gift, so I hold that it is from God. Proverbs 5:19 James 1:17
2. Sex is very easily manipulated, thus many rules have been made pertaining to it. Examples
3. There should be none of these sexual immoralities in the Church. Ephesians 5:3
4. A quick list of sexual sins:

Lust: as per this reply.

hit the little arrow ______ ^^

Beastiality: Relations with animals. Leviticus 18

Sex with relatives: Leviticus 18

et all​

 

[david_x]

Why should I assume?

You knew, we didn't.

 

[david_x]

Firstly, our sexual desire is largely determined by hormones and how we develop, stuff we have no control over. It varies throughout life. Why would this be a sin?

This was addressed by the temptation portion of the post.

Temptation is not a sin, though it births it. James 1:15

You're right. That is speculation. And it requires a definition of lust, which for you right now is not biblical.

LUST & Adultery Math 5 and 19

That is an obviously biased website: the name is "Liberal Christians" I didn't quote something from "ConservativeChrsitians.com" I quoted a bible dictionary.

Matt. 5:28 uses the negative sense of the word epithumia (Greek), or lust(English). 1 2 Matt. 5

 

[Zebra1552]

You knew, we didn't.

Why should I assume this?

 

[Zebra1552]

This was addressed by the temptation portion of the post.

Temptation is not a sin, though it births it. James 1:15

No, not really. Please address the point I made about sexual desire being from hormones.

That is an obviously biased website: the name is "Liberal Christians" I didn't quote something from "ConservativeChrsitians.com" I quoted a bible dictionary.

David, you clearly didn't bother to read the site at all.

[SIZE=+1]Liberated Christians[/SIZE]
is the name of the site...

And dismissing it as biased does not dismiss the information. Address the article:

The natural desire for sexual variety has absolutely nothing to do with "lust" as most assume it to mean. Lust is only wrong if it is the selfish desire to take something from another. Lust is wrong if it is about greed and self satisfaction at the expense of another. But there is nothing whatsoever wrong with mutually desired loving intimacy and enjoying sexual variety.

In biblical times man could have as many wives and concubines (breeders) as they wished once the man was age 12 and the women age 13, and adultery was only a sin for a married women. It was never a sin for a married man as long as the other women was not married (owned by another man).

Biblically lust was not nearly such a bad word as those that use it against sexuality seem to think. In the original Greek the word translated "lust" was used several other times for things NOT considered wrong: Jesus "lusted" to be with his disciples. The word is the same as that some use to make lust to be a sin. Did Jesus sin? No, but He lusted. Strong desire for something is not a sin.

Another interpretation of the famous "lust" passage is that Jesus was taking the law in which the scribes and Pharisees believed that they were so authoritative on and pressing that law (using adultery as an example) to its ultimate conclusion, the intent of the heart.

Jesus was not interested in making a new law for us to follow. After all, he came to fulfill the law in himself through atonement, to bring back to God those of us who will come. The ONLY commandment he gave was LOVE, love of God with all that is within us and love of others as we should love ourselves.

Jesus was pressing the law to its ultimate conclusion to show how damningly impossible a task its proposed adherents set for themselves in their inherent inability to follow the law. Other NT verses come right out and say that the law condemns, and that salvation is to be found elsewhere. The law does not save. Jesus' graphic illustration of sin by saying that the lustful should first cut out their eyes to enter heaven is not meant literally because the heart is the real core. Jesus is being sarcastic with the dogged enemies of the truth that were the Pharisees and Sadducees who sought to keep their status quo intact.
Matthew Adultery Verses Math 5 and 19
Math 5:27-28: An interpretation of this passage is that if you look at the Greek verb (lust more properly translated covet or desire), is the same word used in the Septuagint's translation of the 10th Commandment (not covet). In this case, Matthew has Jesus saying that covetousness, the desire to deprive another of his property, is the essence of adultery. Jesus was then reaffirming a quite traditional understanding of what is wrong with adultery.

The Greek word here is, of course, epithumia, which also means "covet" and is the word used by the translators of the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew, chamad, in Ex. 21:17 "Thou shalt not COVET ." It is not coincidence, by the way, that "neighbor's wife" is included with the other PROPERTY listed in this text...like neighbors ox etc...

In this case, Jesus was asserting that adultery does not consist primarily of sexual union of two people, at least one of which is married, but it consists rather in the intention, accomplished or not, to take what belongs to another. The purpose of the verse is to show no one is free of sin, but the nature of sin lies in impurity of the heart (taking from another man his wife) rather than the physical act itself. This is different from consensual nonmonogamy. Its like the Rabbi said at the swing club, "I don't want to own your wife, just borrow her!" Now, lets look at how porneia is used here,

In discussing Math 19:9 "porneia": "The exemption for porneia (harlotry) must refer to the provision in Torah which allowed a man to reject his wife who had not shown proof of virginity. Such a bride was said to have 'played the harlot' (ekporneuo in the Septuagint).

Since a women could never have sex outside of her marriage, but a man always could, this was an important issue. Under the Torah, a married women committed adultery when she had sex with another man - whether he was married or not. (violated womens' husbands exclusive right of sex over her regardless which I refer to as property rights).

It was impossible for a married man to commit adultery, since he would only be violating his own rights (his wife had no say over husbands having sex with others, or bringing in more wives or concubines). Jesus however, uplifted womens rights, that she too now had "a permanent and indissoluble claim on him as her sexual property" Thus is sexual freedom was to be no greater than try and sum up another big area, Countryman explains the verse "Let whoever can receive it receive it" in 19:11-12 ONLY when voluntarily agreed upon by both and NOT as a new law for Christians. It was for those that where the man had no intrinsic relation to a family where they could give up their patriarchal positions and not keep their households in subjection to them. Again, this has nothing to do with consenting nonmonogamy or loving singles sexuality.

The Church (not the bible) is so obsessed with sexual sin that it often ignores the context of a passage in order to prop up it's views, right or wrong. Read on in Math 5 through verse 32, which, in the paragraphing of many Bible versions, is joined to 27-28. This is a challenge to Jewish men to stop treating their wives unfairly by demanding divorce for frivolous reasons, a practice that was quite common at various times in Jewish history.

Matt. 5:28 uses the negative sense of the word epithumia (Greek), or lust(English). 1 2 Matt. 5

Ignoring what I stated about the definition of lust to support your own interpretation isn't going to fly with me. Address the point or concede it.

 

[david_x]

Why should I assume this?

You want me to spell out the logic?

1. Someone posts that they have read more than 20 pages.
2. You only see 13 posts.
3. You know that you changed the number of posts that appear in each page, for yourself.
4. You see that the poster in point 1, has only been on for a little while.

You can now correctly assume that he is using a different number of posts/page.

 

[Zebra1552]

You want me to spell out the logic?

1. Someone posts that they have read more than 20 pages.
2. You only see 13 posts.
3. You know that you changed the number of posts that appear in each page, for yourself.
4. You see that the poster in point 1, has only been on for a little while.

You can now correctly assume that he is using a different number of posts/page.

I joined before the site overhaul. Why would I assume that the defaults are all the same? Why would I assume there isn't some tech issue? Your logic does not account for any number of other possible explanations either. So I'll ask again. Why should I make assumptions?