Friday, August 1, 2014

Does The Bible condemn all Sex outside Marriage?

The first question we need to address on the subject of Biblical sexual morality, is how do we define Sex? and how does The Bible?

In the modern western world, it can often be outright offensive to suggest that only actual penetrative sex (vaginal or anal) technically qualifies. One reason being it implies Lesbians can't have "actual sex" at all. But like it or not, for most of human history that has technically been the assumption. The Hebrew Bible doesn't have any word that simply translates to "sex" how we use it today.  And there is plenty of evidence that in antiquity Lesbians took pride in being called virgins, looking at homo erotic myths related to Artemis/Diana and perhaps also Anath.

Biblical terms like "Lie with" or "Know" or "Uncovering Nakedness" are not strictly limited to sex in their literal definition anyway, so it's hard to determine without context.

The term "Lie Carnally" is more explicit, the word translated "Carnally" is Zera` [(zeh'-rah); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2233] which means "seed", and can literally mean "sperm" or "semen". Technically the Strongs will give the impression in one occurrence that another word is what's translated Carnally. But that verse also uses Zerah, the order of words being changed in translation simply caused confusion here.

We tend to think of Carnally as meaning "fleshly" or "of the flesh". And in it's one New Testament appearance in the KJV of Romans 8 that is what the Greek word means there. But the Old Testament usages are different.

Now when a male orgasms his "Seed" comes out. So you might think that doesn't make it very specific at all. But in English we too have created a verb form of one of our terms for that substance. "Inseminate", and what we mean when we say "inseminate" isn't putting the semen anywhere, it's usually about putting your semen in a woman's reproductive organs making it possible a child could be conceived. Possibly with conception being the explicit intent. I think it's perfectly reasonable that Moses meant something similar, and that it's specifically reproductive sex those verses are about.

You may have heard of the principle that the Intent of the law is more important then the letter of the law, well that concept is in fact Biblical.   Mark 2:27 "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". There is a reason for every law God gives, and the details are important because they help us understand the intent.

Only two not even potentially reproductive sexual acts are ever condemned. A very specific male act in a very specific pagan context, and Bestiality.  Both initially occurring in Leviticus 18:22-23.  Later verses are just repeating that commandment.   The context of being after verse 21, as I've explained elsewhere means they're condemned because of Pagan rituals involving those acts.

The Bible also does NOT condemn Masturbation. That line you often hear (comedian Ron White says in one of his bits that his Grandmother quoted it to him) spouted which sounds Biblical, "It's better for thy seed to land in the belly of a whore to fall on the floor", really isn't, it's made up. In the Strongs you can easily tract down every occurrence of "Seed" as well as the other key words of that sentence (and synonyms for them), and it doesn't appear.

The story of Onan in Genesis 38 is the only basis people have for condemning masturbation, but it's not about that at all, Onan's Sin was breaking his agreement to produce offspring for his brother.  And Masturbation isn't even what he did, but rather "pulling out".

Leviticus 15:16 has been cited as relevant to Masturbation.  That is a part of Leviticus not about Sin at all but about hygiene, the only actual command here is to clean up afterwords.

When Jesus said in Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." It is important first to know that the word translated "Woman" here is the Greek "Gune" which like the Hebrew "Ishshah" also means "Wife". In the context of being about adultery "Wife" is clearly the intended meaning here. That's still incidental to my point, though. People often cite that verse to sound like it means you've sinned every time you observe a woman's attractiveness, or get turned on, or simply don't immediately look away. That's not Jesus' intent, the intent is just to show that God judges thoughts as well as actions.  But that doesn't mean being tempted itself is Sin.  Jesus himself was Tempted and He's without Sin.  It's indulging in those thoughts that makes it a Sin.  He's really not introducing something new, but folding the Tenth Commandment into the earlier ones.  Looking is fine, leering is not.

Now I've shown elsewhere that "Fornication" doesn't mean what you think it means, it means Prostitution.

The "Strange Woman" passages the occur throughout Proverbs are often cited by people as condemning any non-martial sex.  The woman in question may or may not be a Prostitute of some form, but the greater point is that both words translated strange mean "alien" or "foreign", they don't mean bizarre or weird.  And in these kinds of contexts it's being spiritually or religiously foreign, not ethnically or nationally that is the concern, (as we see with Ruth's marriage to Boaz being okay).  Her not worshiping the True God is why she should be avoided.

It is popular for Christians to insist any non-reproductive sex is a sin, but that as you can see is not Biblical. In fact it has become my conclusion studying the Bible, that besides the Blasphemy of Pagan ritual sex acts, it's chiefly reproductive sex God desires to limit. Yes we were commanded to "Be Fruitful and multiply" but we are still supposed to do so carefully to give each new child a healthy stable family to raise them in.

The Song of Songs or Song of Solomon has three verses that poetically allude to what we today would label Oral sex. The woman on the man in 2:3, and the man on the woman in 4:16 and 8:2. The last of which is also proceeded by a verse describing the man suckling his lover's breasts.

Conservative commentators insist the Song of Songs only condones sexual activity between a husband and wife, because the book revolves around a marriage. But that ignores the chronology of the book, the wedding is in chapter 4 at the soonest, the end of chapter 4 is indeed the first allusion to actual intercourse, but they're Intimate in ways we'd today deem sexual well before then.

The idea that sex is only for reproduction is not Biblical, it is an expression of love, and also a basic physical need. Lack of moderation with anything can lead to problems and thus be sinful, since our Bodies are the Temple of God we should take care of them.

The basis for saying all sex outside Marriage is prohibited, is an assumption that adultery being a sin, combined with the verses on the importance of virginity makes all extramarital sex a sin.

Number One, a woman who's already lost her virginity outside marriage is certainly not addressed, and in the culture of the time she was probably not going to get married. So should she be denied that pleasure for life based on one indiscretion? Which she might not have even consented to?

Number Two, what about a widow?  Widows were allowed to remarry, that's the only time a non virgin could ever get married. And nothing directly condemning a widow having extra marital sex exists in The Law.

Number Three, how is adultery defined? First of all like it or not it only goes one way in the Biblical laws about it, (Even in the New Testament) only the woman's fidelity is addressed. Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife".  Even in Matthew 5:28 condemning even the coveting there is no gender reversal equivalent.

 It's undeniably unfair to women, but it was an unfairness necessary in the ancient world lacking DNA testing to verify paternity.  And there are medical reasons why it's good to know who your a kid's biological parents are, even though that has nothing to do with the real definition of being a mother or father.

The actual wording of The Ten Commandments doesn't define adultery, just labels it a sin. It's Leviticus 18:20 and Numbers 5:12-13 that defines it, and the term used is "Lie carnally" (or "lie with her carnally") the definition of which I discussed on above.

Only one statement of Jesus, recorded in each Synoptic Gospel (it may be he said it more then once, since they seem to be at different chronological points), seems to imply a Man can commit Adultery against his Wife by being involved with another woman. Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18. "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." But this passage exists in the context of condemning Divorce, and also remarriage after Divorce.

In the Sermon on The Mount when Jesus discuses the same matter, he possibly clarifies what he meant. Matthew 5:32 "That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of prostitution, causeth her to commit adultery".  Unlike Men, Women more or less needed to be married to survive back then, so when a man divorced his wife back then he forced her to remarry.  So he's guilty of the sin of adultery because he forced someone else to commit it.  Not because Jesus was suddenly defining Adultery in gender neutral terms no one ever heard of before.

"But it's also his taking another wife Jesus refereed to?" you may respond.  Regardless of what Jesus thought of Polygamy, even in Polygamous cultures most men were Monogamous because supporting more then one wife was difficult.  So the man marrying a new wife means the chances of the rejected one being taken back are severely decreased.

So it's an old gender double standard that isn't as needed anymore because of modern technology. Yet modern society has chosen to try to make this double standard right by giving men the same restrictions women have always had. As a supporter of freedom, I think it should have been the opposite approach. The emotion of Jealousy is the basis for being so bothered by infidelity, Envy is a Sin.

Cheating is a Sin, but not a sexual sin, if it's part of the agreed terms of your relationship to be monogamous then yes failing to do so is a violation.

How is virginity defined? Many would argue it's absurd to purely base it on the modern clinical definition. I reject the traditional view of Tokens of Virginity.  But again the implied intent came down to the man needing to know he's the father of any child conceived.

So basically, there is no Biblical Basis for condemning non Reproductive sex acts between unmarried individuals.

In summery, Sex is only truly Sinful if it's motivated by something other then Love, or forced on someone against their will, or done in Pagan worship. But it is certainly preferred you try to avoid reproducing unless you know you can provide for the potential offspring.

I've seen one website (which argues many things I agree with) say that maybe sex outside marriage was fine under the Old Testament but not the New.  Nothing is more wrong to me then suggesting the NT condemns something the OT doesn't. The things the OT tolerated that the NT doesn't seem to anymore still had God's true disapproval apparent in the Old.  Even my Capital Punishment argument was not without OT basis.

Jesus came to remove a heavy yoke, not to add a greater burden.

1 Corinthians 7 is the key passage to their argument.
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.  Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
Notice how it goes both ways on your body now being owned by your spouse.  No notion here of the Wife as merely property of the Husband which so many assume The Bible condones.

It is also overlooked that most of what begins this is not Paul's words, he's quoting a question he was asked "ye wrote unto me", and I'm afraid it's not easy to tell where the question stops and his response begins.  And his answer to the question is not entirely a yes or a no.

But going on to verses 8 and 9.
"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
There is an insistence that the terminology here treats marriage as the only alternative to being single (which they just assume is synonymous with celibacy).  And that there would be no point to this if one is simply allowed to have extra martial sex, even in a loving context with a fellow believer.

Fornication is a key word here, it's important not just to understand that it doesn't mean all Sex outside Marriage.  But that it is, no matter how many times it may be used more loosely, first and foremost a word for prostitution.  It's not just any random sex Paul wants them to avoid.

It is also important to know that this is a place where Paul is letting his personal opinions influence him, not enough to undermine the Divine inspiration, but it's there.  "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."  "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord".  It is not the full testimony of Scripture that single-hood is preferable to marriage, in fact Jesus seemed to have the opposite opinion.  God did not want Adam to be alone.  The Bride of Christ is a vital Biblical doctrine.

The statement that it is better to marry then to burn with lust is not about avoiding any sexual fulfillment, you could condemn masturbation with that flawed logic, which is absurdly stupid. It's for people who need deeper intimate companionship.  A need that only a committed relationship can truly fulfill.  But if not fulfilled by that could lead to a certain kind of Prostitution.  A kind that is not as well known today as it used to be, but you see in films and literature about older times like, The Egyptian or Baccarat and Torquise in the Rocambole novels.  Where the mark winds up seeking a quasi-romantic relationship with a Courtesan.  And where actual physical intimacy may not even happen.

The word "lust" is not used in this chapter, but it's always inserted by commentators.  Even if it were lust can refer to more then just physical desire, in fact it can be used in contexts not sexual at all.  The desire Paul is speaking of people burning with is not just the desire for physical release, it's a desire for something more.

I will also disagree with those who say this instruction is only for those "in the ministry", I do not support Organized Religion.  All Believers are servants of Christ.

Update May 2020: A fun Twitter thread I had recently.
https://twitter.com/JaredMithrandir/status/1260267274142920707

36 comments:

  1. To be clear, its ok to have sex outside of marriage, its ok to have same sex relations as long as it is not done as a pagan ritual.
    What if the two men in Leviticus just shook hands and didn't have sex at the pagan ceremony would that have been satisfactory to God?
    How different is this that the church's that you mentioned in one of the other blogs that used sex to attach new members, aside for money changing hands. Regardless of your understanding of these verses I find it hard to see anything that is up lifting to the name of Jesus and his church. There is nothing that might offer hope or dispel doubt. You all most sound like an anti-Christopher Hitchin, he argued that religion was here to govern our sex habits, you seen to say that he was wrong. To bad he is dead I am sure that he would have enjoyed read your material.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taking part in the Pagan ritual at all is the Sin.

      Delete
  2. does this mean that sex can and should be used to encourage church membership?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think anything should be used to encourage Church membership. Our job is to spread the Gospel not fill pews.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. The Jesus died for our Sins and then Rose Again. And so we are saved by Grace through Faith alone. And that Salvation cannot by lost.

      I elaborate on all that on my Statement of Faith page.

      Delete
  4. I have read your statement of faith as well as a number of your other posts. I don't differ much with you on your statement of faith certainly not enough to lock horns. What drives my curiosity is how you conclude that sex outside of marriage is not sin. How then do you explain the woman at the well. Jesus commended her for telling the truth but he he did not acknowledge the man she was living with as her husband. Why? Was he being nice? Or was He pointing her to her sin? If Jesus questioned this behavior of a non believer what would be his response to a believer today living in a the same situation? I think these are valid questions. Your response?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Opps, Not sure how i double posted.
    There is nothing to suggest divorce of any of her 5 husbands. But we do known that Jesus did not acknowledge her current companion as her husband unless you insist on interjecting a preconceived notion that none of her husbands had died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This clearly is meant to tie in with Jesus other teachings on Divorce. Jesus would not have had a problem with reemerges after a Husband died since The Bible fully endorses and even encourages that. And 1st Century Judea did not practice polyandry.

      No interpretation of that story lends itself to viewing all sex outside marriage as bad. Quite the contrary it is marriages that are themselves invalid being addressed, not the sex.

      Delete
  7. You are missing the obvious:
    17 The woman answered and said to him, “I do not have a husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have said rightly, ‘I do not have a husband,’
    18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you have now is not your husband; this you have said truthfully!” Notice what he didn't say, like go bring the husband you have or don't worry it will be alright.
    We do not know from the verse that she is divorced. We do know from the verse that she is living with a man not her husband. We do know that Jesus, being God can see the her heart. We can be fairly sure that anyone who lived in 1st century would understand that a man and a woman living together were most likely living in sin. My question was and still is How do you justify the premise that sex outside of marriage is not sin?
    If we are going to talk about Jesus' teaching on divorce let's not forget about his teaching on marriage. IE God ordains it, "even though she is your marriage partner and ⌊your wife by covenant⌋.
    Mal 2:14.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The clearl subtext is that she is Legally married to that man, it is merely spiritually invalid for some reason.

      Delete
  8. What reason? Is God's word leaving us in a lurch? Does not good exegesis compel us to see this verse in the context of the day. No one would see a sub textual meaning in this encounter. The woman was living with a man, not her husband, even if she where the victim of 5 failed marriages that ended in divorce we can be sure that the she was not the plaintiff in any of the hypothetical divorces, this was virtually unheard of in the Jewish culture. Generally speaking woman where almost destine to become victims of a system that God never intended a system that allowed men to divorce their wives for almost anything and without recourse. And before I forget, this is Jesus, the Lord of Glory that Has engaged this woman and I am sure that He was well aware of her needs and was and is always ready to extend a grace greater that all our sin.
    Let me point out that with all the back and forth you still have not presented your argument for 'sinless" sex outside the confines of God ordained marriage, just a reminder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Context of the day is exactly what I emphasize. If Jesus was condemning was living together unmarried the former Husbands would not have needed to be mentioned at all.

      I demonstrated condoning of sex outside Marriage with the Song of Solomon. But I don't need that, if you want to convince me all sex outside marriage is wrong you need to show me at least 2 verses that say that explicitly. And no the word Fornication is not enough.

      Delete
  9. Its amazing isnt it he did mean prostitution!
    That is why the disciples were so thoroughly shocked

    But that was all about the law of moses surely?
    Or maybe not as it was Jesus saying not you geard it has been said of old by the ancients etc
    So new covenant teaching on divorce is you cannot divorce unless your husband or wife is a prostitute!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Very interesting. Seems you make some good points. Do you know any other places I can look for insight into this? Also, I've heard people say that Paul's comment in corinthians 7:6 "Now as a concession, not a command, I say this." has to do with verses 1-5 and not 8-9. What are your thoughts on this?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am extremely curious on how you justify watching H(Your MyAnimeList). I don't think anything you've written in this article supports that. Especially since in this blog you state:

    "That's not Jesus' intent, the intent is just to show that God judges thoughts as well as actions. But that doesn't mean being tempted itself is Sin. Jesus himself was Tempted and He's without Sin. It's indulging in those thoughts that makes it a Sin. He's really not introducing something new, but folding the Tenth Commandment into the earlier ones. Looking is fine, leering is not." (Adding onto this, the word "lust" in Matthew 5:28 can be understood as to passionately desire to covet,. source:https://biblehub.com/greek/1937.htm)

    and

    "In summery, Sex is only truly Sinful if it's motivated by something other then Love" (I fail to see how watching H plus the H itself fall into this category.)

    Paul is very clear in 1 Corinthians that we should focus on honoring God(verses12-20), and how our bodies are not made for sexual immorality, but for the Lord. Paul says in verses 12-14:

    "12 All things are permitted for me, but not all things are of benefit. All things are permitted for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, however God will do away with both of them. But the body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. 14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power."

    Other Chapters in 1 Corinthians are clear about how we should do all for the sake of the gospel(Chapter 9:23) and follow Christ in whatever societal position we're in: slave, master, married, or unmarried(Chapter 7). I don't get how H content is permissible or honors God.

    Not trying to be judgemental. Feel free to correct me on anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah that part I would definitely express differently now. God's judging of our doesn't any vaguely indecent thought, it means actually intending to do something harmful.

      Hentai isn't even like regular Porn, it's drawn, no one even actually has any sex in the process of making it.

      Delete
    2. I want to try to clarify something before I say something else since there are some letters missing from your comment "God's judging of our doesn't any vaguely indecent thought."

      So, do you interperet Matthew 5:28 as: passionately desiring someone else is only harmful if you're intending to do something harmful to them?(ex. like David with Bathsheeba I guess?). So you justify being able to watch H because, nobody is actually being harmed, it's' not real. So you don't think there's
      anything wrong happening. Is that correct? If that's what you meant, that is what I was trying to ask about in my first comment. I don't quite get how engaging in H content isn't doing the same thing as what Jesus says in Matthew 5:28 both your interpretation and my own.

      The Bible has plenty of examples where passionately desiring someone else leads to bad things happening.
      (David lusting after Bathsheba and the Rape of Tamar.). I don't understand how engaging in a behavior that the Bible doesn't approve of honors God: whether real or fictional. Especially since God calls us to love and serve one another. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

      I want to be clear that I'm not saying merely being attracted to someone or wanting to marry is bad. I'm stating that, I don't believe the Bible considers lusting after the opposite sex in a selfish manner whether real or fictional honors God. Isn't Intending to do something harmful (Passionately Desiring someone and wishing to engage in selfish acts) The same thing either fictional or real because it leads to unloving and
      ungodly behaviors? Or is my understanding of whats honoring to God not correct.

      I already stated about 1 Corinthians about how we should try to honor and put Christ and sharing Him as the priority of our lives, and I don't think H content supports either of those things for reasons i've already stated.

      Honoring God and loving one another is the priority here, but it the debate is entirely dependant upon whether one feels guilty about fake content and if they don't believe the content itself harms anyone, then the debate ends on how the individual feels about it themselves.(If that's what the Bible says).

      Delete
    3. Yes that is my position.

      That Bible has examples of lots of things, none of that is what we build doctrine on.

      Delete
    4. I thought I was saying doctrinal things and then giving examples on why not following them is bad.

      "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

      and

      "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

      Apologies for using a lot of words in my last comment, but I was pretty much just asking, why you think H doesn't go against either of those commands. and what do use in the Bible to build doctrine on to support that?

      Delete
    5. Only the second you could even theoretically be relevant, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how watching animated porn could violate the command to Love God and our Neighbors.

      The context of the second one is about Adulatory, the word translated "Woman" there is also the Greek word for Wife. It refers to leering lustfuly at someone else's wife.

      A faithful Anime or Manga Adaptation of the Song of Songs would be classified as Hentai, in fact I've read Hentai Doujins with less explicit intercourse in it.

      Delete
  12. *Long Comment that needs to be split in two*

    My point about Loving God with all your heart soul mind and Strength and your Neighbor as yourself was just shortening what I said about 1 Corinthians where Paul says we should honor Christ with our bodies and not give ourselves over to harlots(Love God). But also a conversation I had with someone else about how American Churches have handled sex very poorly(Which is why I mentioned Bathsheeba and Tamar).(Love your neighbor)


    TL;DR, we talked about how self hatred for being attracted to the opposite sex isn't good, that we're sexual creatures, the importance of relationships over sex, how the opposite sex can feel bad about themselves when people avoid them for their attractiveness instead of looking at them as people, and how people can lust after the opposite sex for the sole purpose of sexual fulfillment instead of loving them. That conversation led me to think about how important it is to love one another(and yourself) instead of lusting after someone or self hating. Companionship with one another isn't possible if people hate themselves, hate others, use them for themselves, or don't think about them or their feelings. Loving one another instead of being divisive and rejecting others is important.


    So, when I think about honoring God and loving my neighbor, I don't think that watching Hentai content is doing what God would want me to do. It's mostly a matter of practicing good behavior in your private life so you don't end up doing something or engaging in something that isn't good, honoring, or loving in real life. When I think about honoring God, for example, there are adultery and rape themes in some Hentai, neither of those are loving or honor God. I'm also certain that there's Hentai where the characters all act like jerks toward one another, which wouldn't be loving one another. Also repeating myself, this is why I mentioned Tamar and Bathsheeba as my examples, because I find it very difficult to see the same behaviors they exhibit as being different from someone who chooses to watch Hentai. Unless it's possible to watch Hentai without coveting a lot, and I'm just overthinking things or applying apples to oranges.


    While the Song of Solomon is very sexual in nature, I fail to see how a love poem that's been generally understood to be about God's love for the Church/Israel means that Hentai is okay. This could be cognitive dissonance at work, but I don't think that reading a poem of two lovers expressing their love for one another, their appreciation for their physical appearance, and their types of desired intercourse is the same thing as reading a Hentai Doujin for sexual pleasure. I don't think Song of Solomon contradicts what I've stated about honoring God and loving one another either, especially since nothing really bad happens in it and it’s historically been interpreted as being about God’s love for Israel/The Church.


    In regards to your statement about γυναῖκα (gynaika) meaning wife. γυνή literally means woman, but it can also mean wife depending on the context, and whether or not there's a word that indicates a possesive.
    Example:
    Matthew 1:20: "τὴν γυναῖκά σου" the WOMAN(wife) of YOU (σου being a possesive pronoun)
    There's no possesive word in Matthew 5:28. Greek also has a general word for spouse. However, γυναῖκα, in a fairly popular Greek English lexicon that i've seen reccomended(A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition), does translate γυναῖκά as wife in Matthew 5:28, and some Bible Scholars state that either translation is fine. Context and other factors are very important in any language. Mark 12:19 has no possessive pronoun for γυναῖκά but it's clear from the context referring back to Mosaic law that it's referring to someone else’s wife and that the brother is supposed to marry her. Maybe γυναῖκά means wife in Matthew 5:28 but I’m not sure if it does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sources:
      https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBibleScholars/comments/imkgqh/did_jesus_meant_woman_or_wife_in_matthew_528/
      https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=941
      https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13624/are-the-words-wife-and-woman-the-same-in-hebrew-and-greek
      https://biblehub.com/greek/gunaika_1135.htm


      I think a very big problem with the Christian Hentai debate is how vague everyone's arguments are.
      This is a good example of what I'm talking about: https://www.gotquestions.org/sexual-immorality.html
      When the article says: "Sex with marriage is blessed" and "sex outside of marriage is fornication" the writer cites Genesis 1:28 and 1 Corinthians 7:2–5. Verses that do not state anything about marriage or premarital sex.

      So, everyone is trying to argue about something that isn't directly mentioned in Scripture, and all we have is the Holy Spirit to give us discernment and to know what we should do, and I've given my own reasons for why I don't believe Hentai is Biblical.
      It's a difficult thing to argue about due to the act of obtaining sexual pleasure from fictional women is never addressed in the Bible. Neither side of the argument I don't think have a definitive case for whether or not drawn porn is acceptable within Christianity. If you want something as direct as possible as an argument against Hentai, Catholicism and Orthodoxy viewing non procreative sex as wrong is probably the closest there will be to something that directly confronts this issue. But that still relies on someone's own personal view of those denominations. And also, the Bible says self-control is a fruit of the spirit, but it's possible to not have self control with things that are harmless in small doses like food.


      Something that I'm trying to avoid is to put my own thoughts and perceptions over God's. Christians have condemned mental health counseling and medicine on the basis of "You're not relying on God" despite there being nothing in the Bible implying taking medicine is you not relying on God.(Some Non believers have condemned mental health for very similar reasons interestingly enough.). Your example of Americans using Jewish Proverb "Better your seed goes in a whore than on the floor" is also a good example of this: acting like something that isn't in the Bible is in the Bible to condemn masturbation. Like the Pharisees and Sadducees , it can be very easy to fall into the trap of adding our own doctrine to make ourselves seem righteous before men. All I can really say is that it’s probably a good idea to not covet wives/women that are fictional because Jesus said we shouldn’t do it to those which are real.

      I'm mostly researching this due to seeing other men online constantly express how much they dislike themselves over masterbation/not having a spouse and how so many people have twisted scripture for things like mental health. Seeing all these people dislike themselves for not having children, for their natural reproductive functions, choosing to constantly beat themselves up for masturbation instead of just letting it go, giving it to Christ, and moving on to something else, makes me very sad. Instead of being happy with who they are, they constantly act sad about who they aren't and derive their self worth based on whether or not they have sex and constantly dwell on it.

      So far, my opinion hasn't really changed. I haven’t seen any definitive arguments for Hentai being biblical other than “They’re not real” There are plenty of people who have used porn/hentai as a coping mechanism and/or to self medicate for their other problems who have benefited from stopping it all together.(As letting go of a negative addictive behavior means that you would naturally put your focus on something else and feel better). To give you an idea of what exactly I'm talking about here's a source: https://archive.ph/2lgia/a745022f31df4e54d625ad59f8753ddfc4c82c69.png

      https://www.drjasonwinters.com/blogs/psychology-of-sexuality/2013/01/10/thursday-mail-january-10/#comments=)

      Delete
    2. I reject those allegoricla dismals of the Sons of Songs.

      The point of the two Greatest Commandments is show on unrestrictive God's Law is meant to be. You're not going to logic trap my into thinking watching aniamted erotica somehow conflicts with loving God.

      Delete
    3. I'm not trying to logic trap you. I'm sorry if I wrote like I was logic trapping you. I was mostly just giving my reasons and interpretations from the Bible, not trying to make you come to the same conclusion I have. I also said I wasn't trying to behave like the Pharisees trying to please men over God with their own traditions. I wasn't just meaning Love God to honor Him in whatever you do, I was also meaning loving your
      neighbor as in practicing not coveting the opposite sex for selfish reasons. (Jesus in regards to loving our neighbors told us to do likewise with the parable of the loving Samaritan) I know that Paul heavily encourages us not to be divided against one another, or devour each other, but to love one another, so I'm sorry if I am being divisive when I'm not trying to be.

      I mentioned the allegory of Song of Songs, but I didn't mean to put emphasis on the allegory. What I meant was: How does love poetry with descriptions of intercourse permit the consumption of Hentai?

      I'm really just trying to understand why you've come to the conclusion that Hentai is biblically acceptable.

      There are not that many verses that address it specifically.(or even at all). The only verse that could be considered to address it is Matthew 5:28(There might be another I don't know about). I kind of have to ask myself if when Jesus says that if one covets after women He has committed adultery with them in their hearts similar to those who commit murder when they hate someone:
      Is it more likely that Hentai is similar to coveting a women? Are people doing the same adulterous behaviors that Jesus doesn't approve of when they watch/read Hentai? Am I doing something that Jesus doesn't want me to do? Does Hentai even fall under what Jesus is talking about?


      For me, it seems like from the Bible that Hentai would not be considered biblical, with what Jesus says in Matthew 5:28 along with all of the other things I've said in my previous comments. I just think that, with the sexual behaviors that can be portrayed in Hentai that aren't biblical(adultery, rape. torture, bestiality.) and how important it is to practice not engaging in unbiblical sexual behaviors and that we probably shouldn't covet after women. That it's unlikely Hentai is biblical and that one isn't engaging in unbiblical behaviors when consuming it.


      Genuine question, is there something that I'm not understanding or are the reasons that I've listed in my previous comments wrong? Because I think that from the Bible it's more likely that Christians probably shouldn't watch Hentai than that they should. Is it more likely that Hentai is biblical, or it isn't?

      I'm trying to understand your position because I don't quite get it. what scripture would be used to support the consumption of Hentai or lack thereof, and am I wrong about anything I'm saying?
      (You don't have to repeat what you said about Matthew 5:28 if you don't want to, feel free to just not respond to this if you don't have anything new to say. I also wanted to thank you for responding to my comments. Pray you would have a blessed day.)

      Delete
    4. The Hentai I like is mostly just love poetry but animated.

      Delete
    5. No it's simlar to coveting someon's wife ebcause it's all fictional characters.

      Delete
    6. You mean not similar? You said similar.

      Delete
  13. I think this binary between celibacy and marriage is present. Regardless of what it burning referred to, there's still a choice presented between being as Paul was and married, but Jesus is even more clear: he paints our choice as being between marriage that should end only on account of adultery or being a eunuch. In a world with meager contraceptives, a eunuch must refer to a celibate. Jesus, by saying that those who can accept that should, in my opinion, completely agrees with Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I just wanted to comment again after reasearching more into how Western Philosophy and values influinced peoples interpretation of the Bible

    I gotta say. . . Man. . .

    I kept researching this and the more I researched about Western Philosophy, the more I started to notice how certain ideas and people are just repeating Greek Occultic ideas. Jordon Peterson just CTRL+C CTRL+Vs Carl Jung, who was into heavy Greek occultism. C.S. Lewis
    flat out stating Narnia is just the theory of forms in the final book. ("It's all Plato"). John Calvin being influinced by Augustine, who in turn was influinced by Plato. People on internet forums quoting someone else who was influinced by Greek thought. Modern Judaism and Kaballah copying Platonism and Gnosticism. People projecting Greek ideas onto the Bible. "How do you know what goodness is?" used in online apologetics. I could go on and on but it's crazy how much Western Culture is projected onto everything.

    Reason why I'm talking about this here instead of your post talking about Western Philosophy is because it's related to my earlier comment about mental health problems people have had. It seems like some (not all) of the mental struggles people have had are a direct result of Western Philosophical ideas being pushed onto people (Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, don't take medicine or do anything physically to help your mental health, because you're not relying on God.). I've started to think that a lot of the Western ideas are very unhealthy and lead to a lot of individualism and self hatred, due to not achieving the perfect standard imposed by the West. A friend of mine put it best: Are any of the people who push for Western Philosophical ideas, who have all the success in the world, who constantly want more and more, happy?.

    Theory of Forms IMO is a very prideful mindset because you have the idea that YOU inheretly know the REAL truth from the REAL REALITY and if someone shows you something that proves you wrong, that doesn't comply with YOUR truth, that person must be wrong. There's no community, or higher power involved in a lot of western ideas, it's all about you.

    I'm kind of uncertain about how to talk about this with other Christians, because on the one hand, We're called as Christians not to be divided against one another, but to
    build each other up. Christians of all denominations are my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, but I know quite a bit of them hold Western ideas extremely dear to their heart.
    If the ideas don't drift them further away from Christ or make them feel worse, then that's fine. It's not my place to judge others for how they live and how they feel lead of Christ. But I see so many Christians online place so many high standards for themselves and beat themselves up because of Western Ideas. I'm just think, if they leaned on Christ instead of man made doctrine, like Paul tells us to, then they could probably start to work on their issues. and know that none of us are perfect and in need of Christ Jesus nobody can do anything apart from Him unlike what the West says. The unrealistic standards imposed on them really hurts them. Since the I believe the root cause of a lot of these issues is Western Philosophy, I don't think just ignoring it will help people either.

    Perhaps I'm the arogant one, because I'm kind of trying to control how others should live their lives instead of just sharing Christ with them. At the same time, they really like to force Western values onto others and do everything in their power to scilence other opinions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. To add something kind of relevant to the original post, my opinion on the Nofap and TBOP movement got a whole lot worse. I found out that YBOP is a think tank funded by
      National Center on Sexual Exploitation, a government funded organization that was formerly called Morality in Media, which hid it's Catholic origins and moved from
      focusing on vulgur content, to exploitation. Nofap Repeats stuff said by NCOSE, Fight the New Drug, and YBOP. Fight the New Drug does the same thing as NCOSE, hiding their Mormon origins. YBOP and Nofap also stalk and sue people who disagree with them,
      but the people who disagree with NSFE do very similar things. Both sides of the debate just stalk each other and the pinacle of this is when a Mormon Podcast was raided by
      both YBOP(making themselves anonymous), and Nicole Prause.
      https://web.archive.org/web/20170828132208/https://www.mormonmatters.org/2016/11/10/353-354-championing-the-addiction-paradigm-with-regard-to-pornographysex-addiction/

      So TL;DR, Government agencies with an agenda took advantage of COVID and people with mental issues by citing think tanks. and Corporations trying to hire people to push counter
      evidence to save money. Big sad.

      Deleted my original post and posted this one to correct the error for Nofap being funded by NCOSE. I couldn't find any evidence of that website being funded by them, but he does collaborate with other individuals pushed by NCOSE and attend their conferences.

      Delete
  15. Doesn't women mean both wife and women as it could be used in either way just based off context because i am a little confused about it

    ReplyDelete