|
murlough23
|
 |
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2006, 05:42:35 PM » |
|
Alright, you guys are losing me here, so I'll get back to an issue with a term that was raised earlier:
What is "fornication"?
And does masturbation fall under that definition? Why or why not?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2006, 08:48:56 PM » |
|
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
I don't see Jesus saying, "Lust is adultery and adultery is lust," or, "All adultery is caused by lust." He says that lust is adultery in your heart. (That is the format of his argument--not another.) As far as that verse alone goes, that is all I have said. Do you really see him making one of those two arguments? I agree, but I don't see what it has to do with masturbation whatsoever. I can't speak for Bennie, Mur, but fornication generally is intercourse between unmarried persons, or a person and themselves if that's where the debate is right now. My understanding of the word, like my understanding of "adultery", requires two distinct individuals, and can include fornication in one's heart, without the actual deed, if I'm to take Jesus's words and extend them not so far from what's actually there. I cannot include masturbation in any of these definitions simply because of that "other person" hurdle. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 15, 2006, 05:07:10 AM by bloop »
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
ThePurplePerson
|
|
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2006, 10:06:41 PM » |
|
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
I don't see Jesus saying, "Lust is adultery and adultery is lust," or, "All adultery is caused by lust." He says that lust is adultery in your heart. (That is the format of his argument--not another.) As far as that verse alone goes, that is all I have said. Do you really see him making one of those two arguments? I agree, but I don't see what it has to do with masturbation whatsoever. I can speak for Bennie, Mur, but fornication generally is intercourse between unmarried persons, or a person and themselves if that's where the debate is right now. My understanding of the word, like my understanding of "adultery", requires two distinct individuals, and can include fornication in one's heart, without the actual deed, if I'm to take Jesus's words and extend them not so far from what's actually there. I cannot include masturbation in any of these definitions simply because of that "other person" hurdle. Well... if one is masturbating with a distinct person in mind, wouldn't that constitute fornication of the heart? Or is your argument that fornication must be a mutual thing on the part of both parties? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
-ruth ann
it's like God himself is coming home to say:
"I, I can do anything, if you want me here.
and I can fix anything, if you'll let me near.
where are those secrets now (that you're just scared to tell)?
I'll whisper them all aloud so you can hear yourself."
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #43 on: February 14, 2006, 12:53:49 AM » |
|
I can speak for Bennie, Mur, but fornication generally is intercourse between unmarried persons, or a person and themselves if that's where the debate is right now. My understanding of the word, like my understanding of "adultery", requires two distinct individuals, and can include fornication in one's heart, without the actual deed, if I'm to take Jesus's words and extend them not so far from what's actually there. I cannot include masturbation in any of these definitions simply because of that "other person" hurdle. The "two individuals" thing is interesting, because Jesus has told us that adultery can happen in the mind without the other person's consent or knowledge (I suppose they could be deliberately tempting the other to think lustful thoughts, but this is clearly not always the case.) And I'd probably wager that masturbation with thoughts of someone specific likely constitutes a sexual interaction with that person in your mind... more or less adultery, though I still wonder if "adultery" is really the right term for it if, say, it's someone you've expressed the desire to have that sort of relationship with, within the context of marriage, and there's a mutual understanding that you both look forward to sharing that (it's natural that at this point, one can't help but think about what that's going to be like, even if one does not masturbate while thinking about it). Tangent aside, in general, I wouldn't advise the thinking about the other person. But an act truly only involving oneself, with no thoughts of another person beyond the vague idea of looking forward to sex as God created it to be... a deep giving and sharing between two people? I'd need to see a clearer Biblical definition of fornication before being convinced that this type of thing should bear that label. (If anything, it could just help with preparation.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #44 on: February 15, 2006, 05:05:42 AM » |
|
Well... if one is masturbating with a distinct person in mind, wouldn't that constitute fornication of the heart? Or is your argument that fornication must be a mutual thing on the part of both parties? IMO, fornication would include having a distinct person in mind. The person doesn't need to be directly involved if we take Jesus's words seriously. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #45 on: February 15, 2006, 12:15:50 PM » |
|
That still doesn't address whether it's fornication if there is no person in mind.
This is all starting to sound very legalistic, I'll admit that much. This is one of those things where I think the church fell on the strict side of the grey area because they knew they couldn't really police people's minds, so as usual, they had to generalize regarding their actions.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #46 on: February 15, 2006, 05:04:15 PM » |
|
It's an impotant thing for the Church to be able to discuss this stuff and get it straight, so I figure it's worth soldiering on and working past the embarassment, which largely stems from the fact that no one ever talks about this stuff. That is the worst dirty joke ever. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #47 on: February 15, 2006, 05:08:29 PM » |
|
That is the worst dirty joke ever. It wasn't meant to be funny. Explain? Ah... now I see my typo.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #48 on: February 16, 2006, 07:51:07 PM » |
|
That still doesn't address whether it's fornication if there is no person in mind.
This is all starting to sound very legalistic, I'll admit that much. This is one of those things where I think the church fell on the strict side of the grey area because they knew they couldn't really police people's minds, so as usual, they had to generalize regarding their actions. If there is no distinct other, then I don't see how it would fall under the definition of "fornication" or "adultery", including Christ's (I don't know a good word for this) apparent expansion of the term to perfectly align with the spirit rather than the letter of the law - even He requires another individual and, to pull a Bennie, I honestly can't get anything further out of what I'm seeing printed on the page in my Bible without stretching it. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 16, 2006, 07:52:28 PM by bloop »
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #49 on: February 16, 2006, 08:01:24 PM » |
|
If there is no distinct other, then I don't see how it would fall under the definition of "fornication" or "adultery", including Christ's (I don't know a good word for this) apparent expansion of the term to perfectly align with the spirit rather than the letter of the law - even He requires another individual and, to pull a Bennie, I honestly can't get anything further out of what I'm seeing printed on the page in my Bible without stretching it. I was kind of waiting for Bennie's definitions of those terms, though I rather like yours. You know I'm generally a "spirit of the law" kind of guy. Sometimes I just like to play Devil's Advocate to see if things really read the way that we've traditionally understood them. I've learned a few things as a result. By saying that fornication requires the "distinct other" to be present in one's mind, that of course makes it extremely difficult for us to determine where others have transgressed in this area. (Maybe that's the point - if the sin is only in the mind, then the sin is left between the person and God to be dealt with.) Not that I would say rampant masturbation is totally fine if one can claim there's no other person in mind. There are reasonable limits beyond which many things can get out of control. If a person's getting along fine without masturbating, I wouldn't take this as license to encourage them to start doing it or anything. That said, I think there can actually be benefits to masturbation. Supposedly it makes men less likely to get prostate cancer. It also helps a person to become a little more aware of how their "system" works, which can assist in making those first few marital encounters fo a little more smoothly. (I read a book by a Christian author recently that advised as much.) NP: "Explanation", Train |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
