potato991: “It doesn't really matter what the Church's official position is - it only matters what is in scripture. In scripture, there is nothing that indicates masturbation is a sin.”
These first Christians gave their possessions, their families and even their lives to serve the Lord and us, but to you! it does not matter. Did the Almighty came to your home and delivered you personally the Bible? Where did you and I get the infallible Bible? Was it not for the sacrifices of these first Christians that we can boast today on the Bible? Are you aware that there were many books claiming the title of the “Gospel” and “Acts” but The Church rejected these as untruthful? Were the Church to be fallible then the Bible you are in possession of may not be infallible either. On whose authority do you trust that the Bible you have is infallible? Yours?
These first Christians were enlightened by the Holy Spirit to teach the whole world the Truth of Salvation but according to you(!) their position does not matter when it pertains to masturbation!! Do you really desire the truth or is it that you only want what you desire?
What does it mean when Apostle Paul says, “ 25... every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. 27 ... I keep under my body (I control my body), and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.) (1Cor. 9) Self control does not mean to give in to every impulse.
And also, “7: For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8: I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9: But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn [from sexual desire].” (1Cor. 7)
If masturbation was acceptable in Christianity then Apostle Paul would have told them to masturbate so that they would not burn from sexual desire and be forced to get married and be encumbered in their plans for a carefree life; like some people...
potato991: “The Church has made mistakes before, it is fallable like man.”
I mentioned the Church BEFORE the separation. After the separation it is your and my responsibility to examine - from all aspects - all these “Churches” and pray and pray and pray so that it may be revealed to us which is the True Church of God; the One which even the gates of hell (actually Hades) cannot overcome; for it is this One Church which gave us and still gives the Truth of salvation to the world.
1Tm 3:15 “... that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
The “ground” and the “pillar” of the truth is the Church. This Church upholds the Truth of salvation and this Truth includes the Bible.
potato991: “Onan was punished for disobeying God's command (not impregnating his brothers wife) - not for spilling the seed.”
There is no such command in the Old Testament. Onan could have refused to perform the “duty” without any repercussions from God. Deut 25:7-10 It was permitted to refuse. He did not have to try to impregnate his dead brother’s wife. The only unaccounted factor in the equation is his choice to spill his seed. He used Tamar as an instrument for masturbation.
potato991: “As I pointed out, women do not spill seed, so the same rules don't apply. I doubt God only condemns men for masturbating.”
When Christ says, “I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Mt 5:28) does it mean that He excludes women? I am afraid no.
When I said that, "Its wording implies only a religious answer, for it does not inquire if masturbation is wrong, but if it is a sin and consequently it prevents us of applying notions belonging to natural law or any other ethical system."
(you responded) potato991: “Since when does God punish people for doing things that are not wrong?”
It may take 10,000 years or even longer till something is “proven” right or wrong. The question was posted in a Christian thread; not in a scientific – philosophical, medical, psychological, sports related, etc. The question inquires if it is a sin in Christianity. Is this too difficult to understand?
At any rate I lack the time to continue with the rest of your “arguments” and my response is getting a little longer than the usual ones so I think I will stop here. I believe I have said enough on the issue.
Tags:
None
-
-
I guess you feel the American congress today faithfully represents the founding fathers of America. If someone takes a swipe at congress today, it truly has little bearing on those who established it centuries ago.
Originally Posted by elromios
Excellent question. Explain why you hold the word of Christ above the word of Muhammad, why you are Christian instead of Muslim; as it is there you will find the answer to this question. Indeed if I took everything in scripture at face value, I would believe there is nothing wrong with slavery. Instead I choose to exercise my own judgement. I stand by my convictions, and will humbly face judgement, whatever may come of it. You seem content to allow someone else to interpret the word of God on your behalf. Originally Posted by elromios
I would sooner rely on my own judgement. Surely God has equipped everyone with the ability to arrive at the truth, without relying on the interpretation of another. For all I know my judgement is on trial. "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world rather than according to Christ." Col. 2:8 Originally Posted by elromios
I could ask the same of you. No doubt you feel masturbation is shameful, and need to justify this feeling. "For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience?" 1 Cor. 10:29 Originally Posted by elromios
I'm not advocating giving in to every impulse, this would be unhealthy even by non religious standards. Originally Posted by elromios
It might be better, but nowhere is sin implied. Why does the passage I posted previously (Leviticus 15:16-18) talk of how to cleanse oneself after masturbation. "When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening." Lev 15:16. Originally Posted by elromios
Or do you think the emission of semen came about through other means? You wouldn't find any passage along the lines of 'When a man murders thy neighbour, he must cleanse his hands, and he will be unclean till evening'. How do you resolve this inconsistency?
I can assure you masturbation does not provide freedom from sexual desire. Originally Posted by elromios
They were still fallable before this point. Originally Posted by elromios
I will concede this point, his 'using' of Tamar for sex was in its own right morally reprehensible - because he slept with her under false pretenses. Originally Posted by elromios
"9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also. "
Does this not sound like a wicked thing to do, regardless of bibilical law (assuming Tamar was expecting a child)?
By your reasoning Onan was killed for his lustful behaviour, yet later in that passage
" 15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, "Come now, let me sleep with you."
"And what will you give me to sleep with you?" she asked.
17 "I'll send you a young goat from my flock," he said.
"Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it?" she asked.
18 He said, "What pledge should I give you?"
"Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand," she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. 19 After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow's clothes again. "
Don't you question why Onan was killed, but Judah not? Judah was clearly only engaging in sex for pleasure. The difference is Onan was commanded to perform a duty, and failed to - but also deceived Tamar in order to use her for sex. There is also the issue of Onan practicing withdrawal, but surely it is folly to believe Judah was having sex to honor God, and not indulge his own sexual desires. Sure Judah didn't attempt to use contraception, but we can safely assume men don't sleep with prostitutes with the intention of having children.
That is a good point, one taken on board. The whole idea of spilling the seed has connotations of wasting life, throwing away the opportunity to use that seed to create life. It is this interpretation I reject, citing women as the example (who don't 'waste' anything). Rightly so you have not conflated the ideas of self pleasure and avoiding procreation. Originally Posted by elromios
In truth yes, I'm having trouble understanding why you draw a distinction between doing wrong and sin. There are some definite cases, like working on the Sabbath - but these are always explicit. To my knowledge, there are no implicit commandments, where something is not wrong but still a sin. Perhaps someone can provide an example or precedent - something that is not wrong, yet is sin. I trust this will go a long way in clarifying your position. Originally Posted by elromios
-
potato991, allow us to examine your statements for consistency to each other and agreement with the Scriptures; because if you truly interpret the message of God inerrantly, as you claim, we will find consistency in your statements as well as consistency and agreement with the Bible. You told us,
“The issue with masturbation seems to be that of lust, not the masturbation in itself. If someone can masturbate free of lustful thoughts, I've seen no valid argument to suggest it's a sin.” and later,
“Onan was punished for disobeying God's command (not impregnating his brothers wife)”.
Your first statement implies that Onan was killed because he had lustful thoughts, as his sin was not masturbation but lustful thoughts, and then in
your second statement you claim that Onan was killed for disobeying God’s command regarding impregnating one’s dead brother’s wife.
These two statements are not compatible with each other. What was Onan’s demise, the first or the second statement, lustful thoughts or disobedience to God’ law(?) regarding the impregnation of his dead brother’s wife?
But your inconsistency goes beyond your own words because you fail to mention which “command” of God Onan disobeyed. And then to make things even worse for yourself you make Juda’s action, to go with a prostitute, also a sin. But why stop there? Abraham was married to his own sister? How could God tolerate this and even tell him that he would have a child with his sister! Could He not tell him to stop sinning? But the problem is not the Bible. The problem is your “understanding” of the Bible. Which law are you using, to condemn Onan and Juda, Mosaic Law, Roman Law, New Testament Law, Common Law, the Qur’an? Is this the ultimate in Biblical Exegesis with your reliance to your own abilities to interpret the Scriptures?
Do you understand why Sodom and Gomorra were found sinful and condemned to annihilation? Obviously NOT!!! You probably were sick or lazy to go to all your Sunday school classes and you missed the ones that explained these issues. Evidently you are not aware that the Mosaic Law was given approximately 400 years after the death of Onan!!!
The Mosaic Law could not be applied on Onan’s case; nor could the New Testament Law. If there is no law there no disobedience and consequently there would be no punishment. But there is another law which you are unaware of.
God gave to the first-created a commandment, which He repeated again to Noah and the rest of the survivors of the Flood, “God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen 1:28 and Gen 9:1)
According to this commandment the sexual act has to be used for procreation ONLY. No bestiality; No homosexuality; No masturbation; No; No; No; because these acts are not in compliance with this Commandment. Has God ever revoked or in any way altered this law? CATEGORICALLY NO.
This is the commandment which Sodom and Gomorra and Onan disregarded but which Judah obeyed as the twins, Tamar gave birth to, attest. God had not given any laws against prostitution thus Judah acted rightfully.
Potato991, you make some very boastful statements regarding your ability to interpret the Scriptures. You say, “I would sooner rely on my own judgement. Surely God has equipped everyone with the ability to arrive at the truth, without relying on the interpretation of another.” To rely on your own judgment is your prerogative but nowhere has God indicated that we should not rely on the interpretation of others. The opposite, we are told repeatedly in the Scriptures to ask others as in Deut 32:7, “Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.”
Moses was shown the heavenly tabernacle and he was told how the earthly tabernacle should be constructed (Ex 26:30),
BUT, God told him not to attempt to construct the tabernacle himself. Because he gave the wisdom for all that intricate work to others. Ex. 31:1: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2: See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah:
3: And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
4: To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,
5: And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship.
6: And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan: and in the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee;"
We see the same in the New Testament. “And God hath set some in the CHURCH, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” (1Cor 12:28) Why are all these needed if we are to discover the truth of salvation and achieve it on our own? Either you are making a mistake or God is. I wonder who?
But do we not also seek the counsel and guidance of professionals when it pertains to our plumbing problems; medical problems and so forth? But according to you, when it pertains to the Bible, you are an expert. You are an expert in Geography, Law, Medicine, Linguistics (especially Greek!), Anthropology, and, and, ... the list is endless. Judging from the errors you have committed so far in your reasoning but I do not bother to censure due to space you have convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt that you are not an expert.
Yes we have been given an internal criterion which we call reason for the discernment of truth. This is why we trust in the ability of a judge or a jury to discern the truth. But in order for our reason to function inerrantly we need to have all the facts and be impartial. Insufficient facts and partiality have caused man to believe in a flat earth and in the theory of ether, etc etc.
When, in the Apostolic times, the Church had to deal with the necessity or not of the circumcision for salvation, the issue was resolved in a council. This approach became the rule for resolving issues in the Church. “Sola Scriptura” was unheard of, not to mention the fact that the New Testament was not even written yet. If “Sola Scriptura” was what God intended He would have written the Bible Himself and He would have made sure everyone would receive a copy of the Bible and know to read. Clearly He can write it better than any of His followers. Instead He chose to establish His Church as the “foundation and pillar of truth”. He guided and guides His Church to teach ALL His instructions and to write down SOME of these. But I fear that in your case applies what Apostle Peter says, “... in which [Scriptures] are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2Pt 3:16)
But you are not alone in this. Case in point, the Church had to suffer for nearly one hundred years because one man, Arius (250-336) a priest from Alexandria, USING SCRIPTURE!!! tried to prove that Christ is not God. In fact all the heretics throughout the ages attacked the Christian faith through the Scriptures. 20,000 plus, Protestant Churches attest to the error of the notion of the Sola Scriptura. They all preach Sola Scriptura but they cannot agree amongst themselves as to what is meant by it!
Sola Scriptura BUT according to ... WHOEVER!!!
Another point that makes matters even worse is also the fact that we do not have a decent translation of the Bible in English. The ones that we have are ALL based on Desiderius Erasmus’ translation. The man was a humanist. One half of the humanists do not believe in the existence of God and the other one half believe that God does not care much about His creation. Erasmus has introduced so many errors in the Bible that scholars have been straggling for centuries to correct them. So much for the infallibility of the Bible in English!
But you have worse problems than the inaccurate translation of the Bible. You have no qualms adding your own words in the Biblical text. You said, “Why does the passage I posted previously (Leviticus 15:16-18) talk of how to cleanse oneself after masturbation. "When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening." Lev 15:16.”
There is NO mention of masturbation in the text from where you took the above quote and the emission of semen can happen for many involuntary reasons. The whole chapter in fact addresses the issue of involuntary loss of blood for men and women as well as the involuntary loss of semen.
If one believes in God and still stoops so low as to change the Scriptures to his own liking he/she must be deranged. Have you not read, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:” (Rv 22:18)
... Obviously not!! -
I don't wanna hurt the sensibility of anybody but only express my opinion...
I do believe that God wants us to be honest people and to love each other...if someone kills one, then it's a sin, if you commit violence on someone else it's a sin....but if you masturbate.....you are not hurting anybody...
I mean...I don't think that God really cares about it...there are things much more important than this..... -
wow......wow...wow!
ANGEL_GURL ALL THE WAY!! -
Sorry....what do you mean?
-
not much really its just a random post.. i mean this post gets u thinking n stuff but not much..ehehe i didnt mean it in a bad way or ne thing its all cool.. GOD bless everyone!
ANGEL_GURL ALL THE WAY!! -
I make no such claim. Originally Posted by elromios
My first comment is completely decoupled from the story of Onan. I don't believe the story of Onan has its focal point on the sin of lust. Indeed Judah lusted after his daughter-in-law, and was not similarly punished. I do believe story of Onan is about selfishness, and taking advantage of another for your own purposes (deceptive intentions). Originally Posted by elromios
It's about Onan taking advantage of Tamar, but in doing so he spites God. Instead of carrying out God's wishes, he uses God's word as a vehicle to take advantage of Tamar. It goes deeper than "you didn't do exactly what God said, and must be punished". As you pointed out, he could have declined to give Tamar a child and all would have been good. It's the manner in which he handled the situation. Originally Posted by elromios
Please point out where I said Judah's actions were sinful. In fact, I was saying quite the opposite - he wasn't punished for his actions, despite equivalence to Onan's actions in the context of lust. Both lusted after Tamar. So what separates the two cases? Not masturbation. Originally Posted by elromios
No law, just commonsense. Tamar was being used by Onan. Put yourself in Tamar's position, would you not agree Onan's actions were dishonorable? If Tamar was my daughter, and some guy kept sleeping with her under the pretense he was going to give her a child, but kept failing to (on purpose) - I would want to smite him too. Wouldn't you? It's really that simple. Originally Posted by elromios
Let me be crystal clear on this - before mosaic law, some things were still 'wrong'. How exactly did Adam and Eve know right from wrong. What did people do before Moses, are you suggesting they were incapable of telling right from wrong? God did not write out commandments on tablets because he decided to make up some new rules one day. The rules always were, it's just some people evidently couldn't figure them out for themself. Originally Posted by elromios
That's your interepretation. It's like saying don't eat for pleasure, because eating is only for sustenance. No more dessert for you. God wouldn't approve. Originally Posted by elromios
God has not given any laws against masturbation. Prostituation is unequivocally linked to lust, and having sex for pleasure. I am frankly amazed you can denounce masturbation and suggest there is no issue with prostitution. Originally Posted by elromios
This is like suggesting the judiciary system is required because nobody is capable of being a good citizen without it. There are many people that could live a just life without the threat of law enforcement. Some need a little encouragement do to the right thing. Others are seemingly a lost cause. God allowed people to find their own way initially. That didn't seem to be working too well, so he intervened to help things along. Originally Posted by elromios
Not an expert. God would not make it difficult for people to do the right thing, make it something fraught with danger and prone to error. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, when it comes to the wisdom required to live a moral life. It's not rocket science, truly. Originally Posted by elromios
True it could be in reference to nocturnal emissions, strikes me as odd it should say 'will be unclean until evening', considering you don't find out about such emissions until the morning. But this is perhaps just my subjective skew - I can accept the text may have been specifically referring to involuntary emissions. Originally Posted by elromios
The scriptures are there for guidance. I have not changed them, simply relayed how I interpret them. Though you may write me off as deranged, I think our beliefs are different enough for this to be warranted. Originally Posted by elromios
Anyway I do find your contributions valuable, as you actually articulate your points - where many just make random comments without backing whem up. Even though I don't agree with you, this is of little importance, as it's for people to come to their own truth on the information provided. You alone should be, and will be, responsible for what happens at the day of your judgement. -
I think this is quite unpolite..I expressed my opinion like everyone else does, but without insulting everybody. Originally Posted by LASINGER
-
Ohh Ok
ANGEL_GURL ALL THE WAY!! -
No Insult Taken At All Whatsoever.... So Umm Yeh Ehhe Like I Said I Didnt Mean It In Any Way N I Didint Nnecessarily Put Up Becuase Of Waht U Said But Becasue Of All The Posts.. I Mean Even I Have Put Some Up Here So I Mean I Said Wow Like Over All Like Wow.. Its An Intresting Topic That People View In Many Diffrent Ways So Sorry If U Thought That It Went Directly To U .. But It Didint.. God Bless Everyone!
ANGEL_GURL ALL THE WAY!! -
No problem, don't worry
-
can I intervene??plez
The God says in his way that everything has a harmful result upon human rights is sin..!
nothing strange
if anybody attacks one's rights is sinful
>>>>>>> -
I feel that before I respond to anything else it would be wiser to elaborate on a basic principle of Christianity.
In the US, in the event of a crime committed against the laws of the Government, the Government is represented in Court by the District Attorney. At the local level, depending on the Jurisdiction, we have officers with titles such as Commonwealth's Attorney, State's Attorney, County Attorney, County Prosecutor, etc; in the Commonwealth countries it is the Crown Prosecutor, the Crown Attorney, the Crown Counsel, etc.
When a human being transgresses a God given law there is someone who acts like a District Attorney and accuses the sinner and demands the maximum punishment. This accuser is not God; for as it is said in the Scriptures, God does not desire the death of the sinner. God’s desire is that the sinner will turn back from his evil ways and live (Ezek 33:11). The accuser of the sinner is Satan, the “... accuser of our brethren ... he who accuses [us] before our God day and night” (Rev. 12: 10). This “District Attorney” is not appointed by God. Satan does this on his own because he hates God and humanity and he is “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44).
As it is seen in the case of the compassionless rich man,
"God said to him, You fool! This very night your soul is required of you [in Greek, “THEY will demand your soul, your life” i.e. Satan and his demons will demand the death penalty for you]; and now who will own what you have prepared?' (Lk 12:20) (NASB)
If Satan wins his case against a sinner, it is he, Satan, who carries out the penalty, under of course God’s close observation. God gives man gifts and Satan tries to find ways to take everything away; hoping to take even man’s life if possible.
In fact Satan has so much hatred against the human race that he not only accuses the sinners but he tries to find ways to torture even the innocent. He told God that the guileless, sinless and God-fearing Job only loved God because of the wealth that God had given him. “9Then Satan answered the LORD, "Does Job fear God for nothing?
10"Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.”
God, knowing how much Job trusted and loved Him, permitted Satan to afflict Job and as we know, Job proved Satan a liar and a man hater, for Job’s love for the Lord endured no matter what God would allow to happen to him; and God was once more vindicated.
Now, under the light of the above, let us see the LAW which God gave to the people after the Flood, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen 9:1). This is a Constitutional type of law and dealt (and deals) with some of the fundamental relations of the post deluge people. This Law had far reaching ramifications. Obedience to God and this law meant that the proliferation of the human population was of utmost importance. Anything that would interfere in carrying out this law was to be avoided.
The people then understood it and tried to follow this law to sometimes extreme ends. As in the case of the two daughters of Lot who made their father drunk with wine and slept with him to have children; for they understood this to be obedience to God’s law. They chose to disobey Hammurabi’s law, which were their governing laws at the time and which forbade the sexual relations of parent/child as incestuous (Laws 154, 157). Reading about some of these people in the Scriptures it can be seen how important they considered this duty to have children and thus obey God’s law; the more the children the greater the blessing of God. When a couple could not have children it was viewed that they somehow had displeased the Lord and the Lord would not bless them with a child.
Sodom and Gomorra transgressed this law. They were involved in an activity which interfered in the carrying out of this law and Satan demanded their death. God showed reluctance to accept that his children would so blatantly disobey Him. He says, “I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me;” (Gen 18:21) Abraham prays for the people of Sodom and Gomorra to be saved from destruction, (Gen 18:23-33) but despite Abraham’s prayers and God’s reluctance Satan wins and destroys the five cities.
Onan transgressed the law, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” and not the law against lust which was given much later by Christ (Mt 5:28), as the confused understanding of potato991 claims. Satan would not have been able to use such a law against Onan; as a finite being could not even have known that God would ever give us such a law. God had not given such a law then and as a Father who loves us exceedingly, would not have accepted arguments based on a non existing law and permit Satan to kill his child Onan. God does not need to be told our sins. He knows everything. He did not need to go and see personally the sin of Sodom but because he loves us so much he tries everything possible to give us time to repent and change our ways. Consequently the other claim by potato991 that some kind of a “commonsense” law was applied is utterly ludicrous. God uses His own laws in our defense not some potato991 kind of “commonsense” nonsense law.
President, George W. Bush imposed a ban on stem cell research and recently President Barack H. Obama lifted this ban and granted funds for it. Their decision is in agreement and disagreement, respectively, to God’s law “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth”. The first promoted the proliferation of life the second sacrifices life for the dubious gain in the quality of life. God’s first interest is our eternal salvation and not some kind of quality of life which does not exist in this world. Permit me to compare the state of man on this earth to a dilapidated jalopy which a “certain car mechanic” tells us to enjoy its last days and then let the wreckers take it and throw it into the fire. On the other hand, God tells us to give it our utmost care and He who is a collector promises to restore our jalopy to a better shape that it was even when it came out of the factory the first time; “titanium alloy engine, etc, etc” and display for all to see for all eternity.
Potato991 in order to create an ‘appeal to emotion’ threw in with Onan his father Judah; both lusted he said! Satan could not accuse Judah of breaking any God given laws, for as we saw the law against lust had not been given yet. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and subsequently Judah and Onan, (and the region where they lived) were governed by the laws of Hammurabi.
When Abraham’s wife, Sarah, gave to him her maid-servant to bear him a child she was acting within her rights according to Hammurabi’s laws. (Law 146)
When she demanded the expulsion of Hagar and her son Ishmael from the household for their disrespectful behavior (Law 282); so that Ishmael would not be able to inherit (Laws 170, 171); Sarah was acting again according to Hammurabi’s laws and even God took her side, (Gen. Chapters 16: 17: 21:
Again Hammurabi’s laws applied when Jacob married the two sisters, Leah and Rachel, and each sister gave him their maidservant to have children with them. All this was legally carried out under the legal jurisdiction of the laws of Hammurabi.
Of the 282 laws of Hammurabi 6 of them deal with the legal rights of prostitutes. Prostitutes could inherit, and were a legal entity at that time. God had not given any laws against prostitution - as long as His law that the sexual union conformed to the principles of procreation (at least from man’s side because ultimately God decides if that union will result in a conception). Hammurabi’s laws permitted prostitution. Consequently, no matter what our morals are today, at the time, Judah was acting within the moral and legal rights of the time. To judge Judah with today’s morals would be presumptuous to say the least.
The aforementioned God’ law, in addition to the above issues, is also the LAW that does not sanction abortion. Regardless how many “rights” a woman has, abortion contravenes the law of “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth”. For a reasonable person the aforementioned law should also be sufficient evidence against masturbation, as masturbation also contravenes this law, but potato991 insists that the Bible does not speak against masturbation. I will indulge him/her even further.
Which Bible does potato991 really mean; the one written in the Original Greek Bible or the diverse English translations which pass as “Bible” for the English speaking people? In the King James Bible (KJB) and verse, 1Cor 6:9 curiously(!) the word “homosexuals” is missing!
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind”,
In the New American Standard Bible the word “homosexuals” is included!
“9... do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, NOR HOMOSEXUALS, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor. 6:9-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Now which is the infallible Bible we are to follow, KJB or the NASB? To resolve this we have to go back to The Church! and find the appropriate manuscripts.
Upon examination of the Original Greek Scriptures it is seen that the (NASB) has correctly included the word “homosexuals”. But this raises other questions. How could 40!!! translators working for King James have failed to include “homosexuals” in that verse? When someone interprets from one language to another and especially something like the Holy Scriptures spends a considerable time examining each word, phrase or sentence from many aspects in order to preserve the original meaning. The forty translators did not miss the word; they CHOSE to omit it from the verse.
Having said this, it is also reasonable to question their choice for the word “effeminate”. What do they mean? Clearly they could not mean some guy who likes to play with dolls. Back to the Greek!!! The Greek Original has the word “malakoi”. “Malakoi”, (plural, adjective), “malakos” (singular adj.), derives from the noun “malakia”. The word “malakia” is still in use today in the Greek Orthodox Church in prayers with the meaning of bodily affliction. Of course Apostle Paul would not say that those with bodily afflictions would not go to heaven, so we will have to look for other meanings of the word “malakoi”.
The ancient Greeks permitted homosexuality in their society but like our modern society, not everyone accepted it as normal behavior. It was observed that the passive homosexual behaved in an effeminate manner and knowing that the passive homosexual derives pleasure from masturbation while other things are happening to him, the ancient Greeks attached to the word “malakos” the meanings “effeminate” as well as “masturbator”. Even in modern Greek when someone gets “screwed” on a deal he is called “malakas” when figuratively speaking, much worse when is literal. Besides these meanings the ancient Greeks also attached the meanings of “stupid”, “self-abuser”, “brain dead” etc to the word “malakoi”.
The word “malakoi”, in the above verse, is immediately followed by the word homosexuals so it is not the homosexual aspect which Apostle Paul wanted to indicate with his choice of the word “malakoi” but the masturbating one.
Had potato991 known Greek and read the Bible in the original, all this would have been redundant. Unfortunately, even little Greek children know the meaning of the word “malakas”. At any rate potato991 should have known that his “Bible” has been censured and messed up in translation and he should have been a little more careful in forming doctrine with such low quality of Scripture he has access to.
A word to the wise. If we are required by God to show respect to the older folk how much more respect should we show to those who gave us the faith? “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD.” (Lev 19:32) The Church for thousands of years has been laboring to copy the Scriptures very cautiously and preserve them. Faithful Clergymen, Monastics, and laymen gave up their comfort and pleasures of this life in order to serve the Lord. For their dedication to the Lord many times were tortured, had their hands or tongues cut off, burned alive, but despite all this they persevered determined to pass on to the following generations the Scriptures (amongst other fundamental elements of the faith) free of error as humanly possible. St. Athanasius, for example who defended the divinity of Christ was hiding for 13 years in dried up wells.
Also to brush off arguments you cannot defend against with comments like “it is your opinion” is not acceptable in Christianity. There is ONE Truth and Moses, the Prophets, Christ, and His Church have been debating and debating and debating to prove it. Notions like “it is your opinion” is a concession due to inability to prove our point; another error the Reformation has saddled us with.
I realize that I have written more than these forums are structured for but as I do not plan to return to this thread I would like to answer – quickly – to a comment made by Jess31. Jess31 said, “I don't think that God really cares about it...there are things much more important than this.....”
As it was shown above it is not so much how much God cares about it but rather how much Satan can use our sins against us. Case in point is a clarification Our Lord Jesus made in Revelation 2:14 “I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.”
Balaam, after trying unsuccessfully to curse the children of Israel, told King Balac that it was possible to destroy the children of Israel if he only deceived them into committing the above sins. Deceive them to eat things sacrificed unto idols, thus showing disrespect toward God; and deceive them to commit fornication, thus showing disrespect toward their fellow man; both by that time (Moses time) were forbidden.
When we commit sins, transgress God’s laws and remain unrepentant, then we, and all that belongs to us, can easily be destroyed by Satan and his cohorts, be they spirits or men. -
I have clearly stated I do not believe lust is the primary reason Onan was punished. Please refrain from misrepresenting me, I had clarified my position in my previous post. Originally Posted by elromios
If Onan had refused sexual relations with Tamara, there would not have been a problem - you have admitted as much in earlier posts. It is only your expansive personal interpretation that goes on to associate masturbation with the commandment "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". The two aren't even mutually exclusive. If I'm told to love they neighbour, it's not to the exclusion of the entire gamut of emotions I can feel towards them at any given point in time. Even so as mentioned above, the focus of the story doesn't appear to be lust. Originally Posted by elromios
If the bible were to say murder is ok, and you blindly accept that - that is your directive. In my world, if I do something to someone, and feel bad for it - it's equally wrong, whether or not there is a law against it. If God gave me a conscience that I should ignore, then such deception will surely send me to hell. Since I don't believe God would deceive in this manner, I must accept that my conscience is there for a reason, and should be observed. If someone does something that is commonly accepted as being evil, and God considers it ok because there is no law against it - then I'm sorry but that is wholly incompatible with the notion of a just God. Originally Posted by elromios
The earth is well and truly replenished, do you not agree we have carried out this commandment with considerable success? How much longer must we replenish, until in your view we've sufficiently carried out God's word? Perhaps ten billion people? Fifty billion? Do you consider starvation of children in third world countries, where growing populations are at present unsustainable, a dubious gain in quality of life? Originally Posted by elromios
Originally Posted by elromios
Seems the God you believe in is fickle, and introduces new laws on a whim. Whatever happened to absolute morality, and the unchanging nature of God? If Adam had murdered Eve, would this be ok because God had not handed down a law forbidding it? This is the first I've heard someone argue that despite appearances some things simply weren't wrong in the past, because there were no laws against it. Works for our legal system, but our legal system has no claim to moral authority. Originally Posted by elromios
Is it not more likely they are referring to mutual masturbation, since this is framed in the context of homosexuality? There is a world of difference between the two definitions, you are really grasping at straws here by reverting to speculation on translation subtleties. Originally Posted by elromios
This is why I'm critical of claims not supported explicitly by the bible - because of the capacity for meaning to be misinterpreted or lost in translation. You are going into terribly complex analysis to support your claim, and frankly it is unreasonable to expect others (the masses) to come to the same conclusion. It is equally unreasonable to blindly accept the word of another without understanding the why, which is what you're proposing. Originally Posted by elromios
It is also arrogant to claim to know the one divine truth. There is clearly dissention on this topic, and it's damaging to inflict guilt when in reality it may not be warranted. You have claimed Onan was killed for the sins of masturbation. If there was a parable whereby a man was struck down by God for pleasuring himself in private - this would strike me as odd, but it would certainly clarify things. It is an act that invariably most people on this planet will partake in or consider, it truly is worthy of explicit mention. Originally Posted by elromios
-
no its not a sin
--its perfectly normal!!
-
ya right :S
if thats not a sin so i do not know what sin is actually... -
It's called self-discipline. I don't agree with you dear sorry. Originally Posted by istanbulgal
Read the above message from the person before. He is right!
Mwah.
Seiahna -
Gosh. What has this world come to!
-
its not a sin...at all... in fact, it's healthy both physically and psychologically. those who say its a sin are ashamed of their bodies due to strange religious views...but its a perfectly normal thing to do...
