cowboysfan1970
Forum Regular
I'm curious just how you define lust? What specifically is it to you? Do you consider touching yourself to be lust or wrong under any and all circumstances? If so, why?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Masturbation
- Thread starter FatefulFluke
- Start date
cowboysfan1970
Forum Regular
Let me see if I understand where you are coming from. What if touching yourself is occuring between a husband and wife? Would that be "dangerous" also?
I was instilled with some very repressive ideas about sex and how it was to be used and under what circumstances for a married couple, maybe the major one being that it wasn't to happen unless the couple intended to procreate and that only. Meaning that if you were having it because you simply desired your spouse then you were doing something based in lust and therefore sinful. Some of the same arguements that you have used against touching yourself they used against sex for any reason other than for the woman to get pregnant. Now I don't know if that's what you believe but you do seem to have some negative attitudes towards sexuality. I had the seeds of negativism towards sex planted in my head and believe me the fruit it produces is sour and bitter. I've spent several years trying to overcome that. What bothers me is that I see so many young people in the last several years with really negative attitudes towards married sexuality or just sexuality in general and it makes me wonder where and why they are getting taught this?
I was instilled with some very repressive ideas about sex and how it was to be used and under what circumstances for a married couple, maybe the major one being that it wasn't to happen unless the couple intended to procreate and that only. Meaning that if you were having it because you simply desired your spouse then you were doing something based in lust and therefore sinful. Some of the same arguements that you have used against touching yourself they used against sex for any reason other than for the woman to get pregnant. Now I don't know if that's what you believe but you do seem to have some negative attitudes towards sexuality. I had the seeds of negativism towards sex planted in my head and believe me the fruit it produces is sour and bitter. I've spent several years trying to overcome that. What bothers me is that I see so many young people in the last several years with really negative attitudes towards married sexuality or just sexuality in general and it makes me wonder where and why they are getting taught this?
Upvote
0
Zebra1552
Urban Nomad. Literally.
- Nov 2, 2007
- 14,461
- 820
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Homosexuality is never in the OT. Male-male sex is condemned. And when it's 'condemned' in the NT, it could be a turn of phrase that the Roman culture would understand. So my argument is not void, it shows that your 'definition' of sin is vague. So you can either have sin be vague, which I don't believe it is, or you can redefine your terms.
Upvote
0
Zebra1552
Urban Nomad. Literally.
- Nov 2, 2007
- 14,461
- 820
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
That is talking about male sex, not homosexual sex. It says nothing of woman sex. I mean, really. It's like you didn't even bother to read my post.
Upvote
0
Zebra1552
Urban Nomad. Literally.
- Nov 2, 2007
- 14,461
- 820
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Oh? And how are the commands directed at men applicable to women? You have not given a satisfactory analysis of what sin is. Trying to make the OT say what it doesn't say by any stretch of rational theology isn't going to change my mind on that point. What is sin? Be specific.
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2004
- 14,082
- 1,003
- 84
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Let's get back on topic.
Cowboysfan That was a good post. Some (many?) American Christians seem to have adopted a virtual gnostic (sex is evil) attitude towards human sexuality. The many agonised posts from deeply troubled people on this forum, and the popularity of posts on a sexual topic are stark testimony to some very unfortunate teaching.
John
NZ
Cowboysfan That was a good post. Some (many?) American Christians seem to have adopted a virtual gnostic (sex is evil) attitude towards human sexuality. The many agonised posts from deeply troubled people on this forum, and the popularity of posts on a sexual topic are stark testimony to some very unfortunate teaching.
John
NZ
Upvote
0
Zebra1552
Urban Nomad. Literally.
- Nov 2, 2007
- 14,461
- 820
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Doctorates do not determine accuracy. It's talking about sodomy, not homosexuality.
Then go with commentaries:
Matthew Henry:
"III. A law against unnatural lusts, sodomy and bestiality, sins not to be named nor thought of without the utmost abhorrence imaginable, Lev_18:22, Lev_18:23. Other sins level men with the beasts, but these sink them much lower. That ever there should have been occasion for the making of these laws, and that since they are published they should ever have been broken, is the perpetual reproach and scandal of human nature; and the giving of men up to these vile affections was frequently the punishment of their idolatries; so the apostle shows, Rom_1:24."
The context of that verse isn't very specific, and it's not referenced by Jesus anywhere. The definition of sin that has been put forward is still vague. Why should we label sin upon the basis of opinion? We should not. We should follow what is or is not in the Bible, and masturbation is not in the Bible. Nor is sexual fantasy. What is in the Bible is coveting.
Upvote
0
cowboysfan1970
Forum Regular
North America in the 19th century was strongly influenced by British ideals and morals. They became very deeply seeded and were passed down from one generation to the next. Those values and ideals still exist today in one form or another. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily bad, but what happens is that sometimes people seize upon a virtue and believe if they expand on it or take it to the next level that it is even more virtueous, but what really happens is that they end up twisting it and perverting it. Instead of virtue it becomes very repressive and and iron weight. It seems that Christianity has become assaulted in the past 40 years or so by some wanting to expand upon laws and standards, thinking that it's more pleasing to God, while some have more or less thrown all laws and standars out the window and proclaim that as long as you "are a good person" none of God's laws or standards really pertain to you. One is legalism and the other is moral relativism. Both are contrary to what the Bible says.
I can't say for a fact if touching yourself is a sin or not because to be honest I'm not really 100% sure. But, more often than not the arguements used by people to condemn it (and sometimes those that do it) seem to be very fragile and not based in anything that you can hang your hat on. It's more or less a position of conscience that they seem to want to project onto others and expect them to follow to the letter. Like I made in my last post, people can and do use their own personal beliefs and then twist or misinterpret scriptures to try and make their own law which they expect others to follow and be as fanatically and zealously dedicated to as they are.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
