No God does not Condemn based on Thoughts Alone

Among Conservative Evangelical Christians it is common to claim that “according to The Bible we are judged even for our thoughts”, this influenced even my own thinking way back in the day, maybe even still in the earliest days of this blog.  

 

The basis for this is mainly The Tenth Commandment (Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21) and certain quotes from The Sermon on The Mount (Matthew 5:22 and 27-28).

Many theologians have argued that Coveting in The Bible refers to more than just having ever felt like you want something someone else has.  It’s about dwelling in that Envy and letting it consume you.  It’s a Sin of thought rather than action only in contrast to actual Theft or Adultery, but it is very likely still affecting your actions towards the person you are Envious of even if only subconsciously.  2 Peter 2:14 refers specifically to “Covetous Practices”.  Roman 13:9 lists this command among those sufficiently covered under “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” so if you are obeying that commandment you are sufficiently obeying the Tenth. 

Looking at a Woman with Lust in your Heart absolutely involves an action, the word "look" is a verb.  It’s about leering, ogling. (And that’s leaving aside the dispute of whether the context being about Adultery means Gune should be translated Wife rather than Woman.) It’s not a condemnation of having ever had horny thoughts, or even of indulging such thoughts privately in a way that harms no one.

Likewise calling someone a “Fool” or “Raca” is an act of insulting them, the way people twist that into being a condemnation of ever being Angry is absurd. Righteous Anger is absolutely something The Bible condones. 

Hebrews 4:15 says Jesus felt all the same Temptations we do but never Sinned, this to me is clearly about more than just the famous story of Satan directly tempting Him three times.  It’s an affirmation of the Full Humanity of Jesus, He had thoughts that would be Sinful to Act upon, but because He didn’t Act on them they were not Sins. 

And it’s because I’m a former Conservative when it comes to this very aspect of morality that I’m among those Leftists who see similar attitudes among so-called Leftists as inherently Conservative.  It is pure Idealism, a product of Immanuel Kant’s pseudo intellectual babble about thoughts somehow being more powerful than actions.

And this is part of why I’m against Antishipers.

Harm Reduction needs to be the basis for Morality.

That is my position as both a Christian and a Communist. 

Whether an action is truly "Evil" or not should solely be about whether or not it does Harm, not whether or not you find it "Weird" or "Gross".  But unfortunately many who claim to agree with that still seek to define "Harm" in increasingly abstract ways. The Harm has to be tangible and measurable especially if you want to make it a civil crime. 

In addition to that, in my view whether someone is a currently a bad person or not is solely determined by whether they are currently doing or inclined to do harmful actions or not.  I don't believe they need to in anyway "make up" for their past sins, I don't even really think they need to regret them, Anime does a great Job at turning Villains into Heroes without even changing anything about that character's thought process.

Deserved or Earned Redemption is an Oxymoron, the literal definition of the word is about Redeeming a Debt that can't actually be paid off, same with Forgiveness.  

What's funny is people are gonna tell me my attitude can't be a Leftist one because it's the traditional Christian one.  The problem is modern mainstream Christianity is as Conservative as it now because they don't believe that anymore.  They may deny that fact, they may still preach from the Pulpit that all you need to do to be Forgiven is accept Jesus, but when you get into the weeds of their Theology that is utterly contradicted, because they are all either Calvinists or Arminians, they believe either Evil People were Predestined for Damnation by God for the fun of it, or that they all chose to be Evil.  However I view Sin as an illness that needs to be cured not a Crime that needs to be Punished, and Christians who agree with me were the ones who invented Communism and Liberalism long before any Atheists came along.

Leftists are supposed believe in Materialism not Free Will.  There is no value in Punishing people because that won't undo the harm they caused. 

Hamartia, what does "Sin" actually mean?

People outside The Faith will often look at passages like Romans 3 saying "All have Sinned" and that we are all Sinners as being a very misanthropic sentiment, and some Christians do also treat it that way including myself in the past when I was a more cynical person then I am now.  However the problem is that the harshness of what "Sin" has come to mean to English speakers is no longer a good translation of the Greek or Hebrew concepts being referenced.

The Greek word that Paul and others are using in The New Testament is Hamartia and other forms of that word.  Hamartia is in origin it seems an Archery term, most literally meaning "to miss the mark".  Saying we are all Sinners is just Paul's way of saying nobody's perfect.  Hence "come short of the glory of God".  Now in just these early chapters of Romans it sounds like the consequences of merely being imperfect are pretty harsh, but this is in the context of him arguing agaisnt people way more judgmental then he is as he ultimately argues God has no intention of casting off even the worst of us.

When you look into literary analysis people talk about the concept of a "tragic flaw" that goes back to Aristotle's writings on the subject.  That two word phrase is a translation of one word Aristotle used, Hamartia, I use Hamartia in this literary sense on another blog in my recent School Days analysis, but I wrote that already planning to write this and will probably go back and add links to this post.  It amuses me how rarely this connection is made.

Red of OverlySarcasticProductions in her video on Tragedies says that a character's "Tragic Flaw" can also be the same as their virtue in a different context.  And indeed I'd argue many of the best Superman stories involve the villain trying make a weakness of the very thing that makes him a Hero, and the same thing sometimes happens in Magical Girl Anime.  Now many Christians may have trouble with the idea of this being applicable to The Bible's use of Hamartia, but remember when Paul called himself the Chief of Sinners in 1 Timothy 1:15?  Well the Sin he means is confirmed by what he said earlier in the chapter to be his former status as a persecutor of the Church, and I would argue the very character traits that made Paul a dangerous enemy of The Gospel are what later made him a powerful advocate for it.

However I also think to a large extent the Jewish writers of The New Testament are using Hamartia to translate the Hebrew Bible's concept of Chet'/Chatta'/Chatta'ah, which is also frequently translated Sin and is the word used to name the Sin Offering of the Levitical Sacrificial system.  When 2 Corinthians 5:21 says Jesus was made Sin for us, it's defining Him as a Sin Offering as the Hebrew of those Torah passages usually don't feature a word for offering as a separate word.

The Sin offering is defined as being offered to atone for violations of the Torah committed in Ignorance, the Trespass offering is for violations that were "high handed" (I've seen that suggested as the best translation), but neither is sufficient for actual capital offenses.

Hebrew Roots people will take 1 John 3:4's statement that "Sin is transgression of the Law" to prove that "yes The Torah does still apply no matter how often Paul appears to say otherwise".  However that ignores how in The Torah not all transgressions of The Law are what the word "Sin" refers to.

On The Cross Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do", he defined their actions as Sins committed in ignorance even though by any normal standard they clearly aren't.  Matthew 9:10-13 tells us to think of Sin as an illness that needs treatment, not a crime that needs punishment.  Which is why many theologians see that statement from The Cross as ultimately applying to all the wrongdoings of all Mankind.

Related to this is the issue of cleanness and uncleanness in the Torah.  People keep assuming those passages are about some mystical spiritual uncleanness, but they aren't, they are just literal hygiene laws.

Like how some people keep citing the verse saying Women are "unclean" when they menstruate as some proof of The Bible's horrible sexism.  The Torah is imperfect (Hebrew 7) so I'm not going to claim there is nothing patriarchal about it.  But that exact same chapter of Leviticus says the same about Male Ejaculate and the bodily waste everyone produces regardless of gender.  It's just a passage telling us to wash our hands and shower.

"What about the incident where Jesus refused to wash his hands and then clearly moral uncleanness".  The thing about that incident is that I'm wiling to bet Jesus had washed His hands, just not in the specific public ritual customary to that group of Pharisees.  What He said there was in response to that they were thinking of spiritual cleanness because Hellenistic ideas were already infecting 1st Century Judaism.

I take Sin very seriously, but I take The Son more seriously

A common accusation against someone like me, who both teaches Universal Salvation and argues for more permissive attitudes towards Sexual Morality, is often that we don't take Sin seriously enough.  How can I justify Paul saying "all have Sinned" if there are so many things I don't think are sinful?

But to me, it's mainstream Christianity that isn't taking real Sin seriously enough when they tend to focus on the same kinds of things the Pharisees focused on.

Jesus said the greatest Commandment is to Love God with all your heart mind body and soul, and the second greatest is to love your neighbor as you Love yourself, and He said those were the whole of The Law.  James and Paul in both Romans & Galatians also repeated that the second greatest commandment is the gist of the Law.  The greatest Sin is failure to Love, and in a way that's what all real Sin comes down to.  And I certainly fail to Love God and my neighbor constantly, I don't need a laundry list of specific actions to tell me I'm a Sinner, I just need to look at my own heart.

So I am opposing Sin when I oppose the aspects of Traditional Christianity that lead to justifying Hate.

The epistle known as 1 John in chapter 4 verses 7 and 8 says that God is Love, and that everyone who loves is Born of God and that everyone who Loveth not Knoweth not God.  Chapter 3:14 says everyone who loveth not his Brother abideth in Death.  This Epistle is not dividing humanity into two categories, but listing two categories into which every human has fallen.

Chapter 4 verse 10 and up clarified we are saved not because We Loved God but because God Loved us and gave His Son as the Atonement for our Sins.

"Yea, hath God said" and the preferences of Satan

I'm sure you've often seen during a debate with a very "Traditionally" conservative Christian.  A person will question if The Bible was actually making such a broad and absolute condemnation as we assume, and the "conservative" will point out that "Yea, hath God said" are the first words The Serpent utters in Genesis 3:1, as proof that questioning how strict God is is somehow obviously Satan's favorite tactic.

This is textbook out of context quoting.  Regardless of the inquisitive form of that phrase, the Serpent absolutely did want Eve to believe God didn't want her doing what he was trying to convince her to do.

You see what the Serpent says after that, the statement he attributes to God, is in fact something God did not say.

Let's go back to Genesis 2:16-17 where the actual command from God the Serpent wants Eve to break is said to Adam, let's quote God's exact words from The KJV.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Now in Chapter 3 the Serpent says to the Woman.

"Yea, hath God said, "Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?""

See the difference?  Thing is you could argue he gave a technically accurate representation of what the command was, but the tone is changed. God emphasized there was plenty Adam could eat, just one singular isolated tree he was not to eat.  The Serpent wants to make God seem less permissive, to make his restrictions seem broader then they actually are.

The Woman's response also played into The Serpent's hands.

"We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.""

 See that? God's Word was added to.  Was it because Adam taught her incorrectly (The Woman was created after the command was given) or was she herself making it stricter for fear of breaking it.  Or was it a little of both?  We don't know for certain, a view that Adam taught her wrong is perhaps backed up by how NT references back to this blame Adam alone for what happened.  But it's ultimately conjecture.

Point is, once again the misquoting of God makes God seem more restrictive not less.  And I've seen Bible teachers point out the significance of the "neither shall ye touch it" not being what God said, yet when on a different part of Scripture, they'll encourage the same attitude, saying the commands against drunkenness mean don't even walk into a bar, and so on.

In that movie about Johnny Cash called Walk The Line, there is a scene where one of Johnny's Christian friends judging him is actually referencing Genesis 2-3 and doing exactly what Eve did, completely oblivious.  I found it really funny and I'm not even certain the writers knew what they did there.

Satan was deceiving Eve, but the deception was about the reason it's a Sin not about making her think something is not a Sin.

And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

By making God's command seem more restrictive, he made it seem unreasonable, which in turn made God seem afraid of something, which in turn made him seem like an @$$hole.

Once in a fallen world a lot more things are forbidden to us.  But the Torah also makes clear sinning in ignorance of The Law is not nearly as bad as sinning knowingly, still bad, but not as bad, because Sins made in ignorance can be paid for by the Sin Offering, while knowing Sins require more.  So Satan prefers to get people to do the worse option.

His Temptation of Jesus was not I believe typical of his usual strategy, he needed to do anything to make Jesus no longer a Spotless Lamb.  But even there only one of the three temptations (the first) seems to be based on trying to trick him into doing something unlawful by playing with technicalities.  The second is seemingly a dare to prove Who He Is and the third had no false pretense at all.

Jesus spent his ministry condemning the Scribes and Pharisees for their overly strict interpretations of Laws like the Sabbath, and adding none Biblical Laws called Traditions.  Only on Divorce does he object to them allowing something he felt they shouldn't allow.

In Matthew 23 He says of them "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.".  This is in contrast to Himself in Chapter 11:28-30.  "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

So when I get told that I'm the one trying to pervert Christianity into what Satan wants it to be by promoting more "permissive" interpretations of Moral Law on issues like Sexuality.  I mostly just laugh and wonder what Bible they read.

Paul said "all things are permissible to me but not all things are beneficial" in 1 Corinthians 6.  The Law is now written on our Hearts not in Stone.

There are false belief systems out there built around saying people should do (Biblically) indisputably sinful things.  But they are mostly, (especially the ones that are successful enough to make me suspect Satan is putting particular effort into them) predicated on Rebellion against The Judeo-Christian God.  They have no desire to deny The Bible condemns those things, and it suits them in-fact to claim the Bible condemns things it doesn't.  Mostly these are different forms of Satanism.

The major heretical Judeo-Christian religions, whatever their heresies on Theology and Soterology are, all have in common on Morality wanting to increase not decrease what is Sinfull.  The Catholic Church doesn't want Priests marrying and many other rules, JWs want people paranoid about Blood Transfusions.  Mormons put Coffee in the same category as Alcohol and hard Drugs.  Rabbinic Judaism makes the command to "not boil a kid in it's mother milk" a condemnation of Cheese Burgers.  And you know I even consider Islam with it's over the top prudishness and legalism a form of heretical Christianity.  They see Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, their denial of his Divinity is not unlike the Ebonites and other early Jewish-Christian heretics.  All this shows me Satan wants the God of Abraham to seem strict.

The Christian sects that do take an anything goes approach (to the left of even my morality) are very small fringe groups without a lot of mainstream influence.  I actually don't think every false religion has Satan's personal endorsement, the fallen human mind can come up with bad ideas perfectly fine on our own.

Even major false religions and philosophical systems that have no claim of Biblical roots can also tend toward Legalism.  A recent example would be the Atheistic Straight Edge movement affiliated with pro-wrestler CM Punk (in his Face persona he's like most people in the movement, a perfectly like-able human being, but as a Heel he is a demonstration of how judgmental they can become).   The end result is the same, if people think living a Moral life is really difficult they will give up on trying to.

We've been conditioned to think Pagan=Anything goes especially on Sex.  Neo-Pagan sub-cultures in the West where the mainstream default religion is nominally Christian, tend towards being socially Liberal because they attract people who in some way want to rebel against society.  But even most of these have more Morality then people give them credit for.

I've already spoken of how Rome was contrary to popular imagination a very Socially Conservative culture.  I will talk in the Future about Greek Philosophy.  Japan is also a Pagan culture that is pretty Socially Conservative in it's own way.

On a few select issues Christianity has been tricked by Satan into being OK with things we should have condemned.  Like Slavery/Segregation, Anti-Semitism, Rape victim blaming, imperialism/neo-con foreign policy.  All these serve the same purpose as much of the Legalism however, alienating people from the Gospel and those who know it.  And tend to be tied to something those same Christians do condemn (rightly or wrongly).

Today I feel homophobia and Capital Punishment are at the top of the list of things serving that purpose.  To a Homosexual or Bisexual person their Gayness is part of who they are, not just something they do.  So my fellow Evangelicals even if you insist on still viewing those things as Sins at least avoid the topic while evangelizing.

A lot of False Religions are trying to appeal to LGBT individuals.  I've seen websites for Satanic groups bragging about the Gay Marriages they perform.  And even the Catholic Church looks like it may be trying to appeal to them under Pope Francis.  (Thanks to the Catholic Church accepting Evolution, Evangelicals are inclined to see them doing anything as proof it's wrong).  And there are plenty other Neo-Pagan examples.

However for all the reaching out to Homsexuals in some Occult circles, the Neo-Pagan/Wiccan movement has it's own Homophobia.

I think Christians need to stop simply thinking "if the world is promoting it, it must be wrong" and realize that Satan wants to reach out to exactly those who feel alienated by The Church.

When Blacks were enslaved by professing Christians he created Vodoo to appeal to them, fortunately many didn't fall for that and identified with the Exodus narrative.  During Segregation he created the Nation of Islam and the Five Percenters.  To appeal to women who feel alienated by the Patriarchal norms of traditional Christianity he has feminist and matriarchal themed religions like Wicca, as well as the Aristasia sub-culture, which is another example of a very socially conservative Pagan belief system.

Today he's doing the same thing to reach out to LGBT people.  And we play into his hands when we push them away.

The Democratic Party and other institutions of the political left want to use the LGBT community as political pawns same as they do blacks and other minorities and feminists.  And the same as the Republican party uses Christians and Gun owners.  None of that I see as real true authentic support.

The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Introduction

I'm giving this dissertation as a Fundamentalist Christian who takes the Bible literally, who once held the common assumption that it condemns homosexuality. I don’t change my views to appease anyone, but I always try to be polite towards and tolerant of people with different views, including those who may disagree with me on this. My views on this matter changed as a result of my carefully studying (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) all of the passages of Scripture relevant to this issue.

Before I explain everything in detail, here is the gist of it. Most of the passages are dealing with Pagan Goddess worship rituals involving Anal intercourse. And the Sin of Sodom was in-hospitality.

Now, I also want to make clear, that even when I did hold the common assumption, I was still very different from your typical Fundamentalist on the issue. I never obsessed over it as though it was the main spiritual problem facing the nation; in my view, that’s always been Darwinism. And I’ve never liked homophobes. Nothing is more offensive or blasphemous to me than to accuse God of hating anyone. “God is Love”- 1 John 4:8; and Jesus said to “love your enemies”. As Chuck Missler often says, “there is no sin God doesn’t hate but no sinner God doesn’t love“. He gave his only begotten Son to die for us, hatred is not in his vocabulary. It is of course only a loud minority of Christians who make the offensive statement that he hates homosexuals. But the majority of “conservative” Christians are also under the common misconception that the Bible condemns homosexuality, which is why I’m doing this.

Details matter.

Some will say I’m twisting things around to try and change what to them is the clear plain reading of the text. Many of these same Christians however will be unlikely to defend the out of context plain reading of many other verses in the KJV and other modern English translations as they're frequently cited by unbelievers to allege contradictions or make God look cruel. I believe that the design of God’s Word is perfect and precise, and every detail both of what it does and does not say is important.

Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The Jot/Yot/Yod is the smallest and most frequently used letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It would look to us like an apostrophe. A tittle is a small decorative hook on many letters. One doesn’t really need a brief Hebrew lesson to understand this, the point being that every detail of God’s Word matters, even the little ones, because seemingly insignificant details can make a world of difference, as any good detective would tell you.

Independent Baptists who are KJV-Only are the Christians most likely to be hostile to this interpretation. This is what makes my holding this view even more surprising, because I do basically consider myself an Independent Baptist. But being Independent means I don‘t just blindly follow what a Pastor tells me the Bible says, but rather I look it up for myself. I’m also basically KJV-Only, since I absolutely consider the King James Authorized Version to be the best English translation; it’s always the one I default to using. And I absolutely reject the changes made in modern translations based on the Alexandrian Manuscripts and the textual criticisms of Wescott and Hort, such as removing many critical occurrences of the word 'Blood'. Unlike some KJV-Only believers however, I do acknowledge certain imperfections of the KJV. It is in fact impossible to perfectly translate either Hebrew or Greek into English. NONE of those imperfections effect the Gospel, but some will be relevant to passages I will discuses on this issue. Unlike many KVJ-Onliers I do not discourage studying the original Hebrew and Greek; in fact I encourage it. I believe the Masorectic should be used for the Hebrew, and the Textus Receptus for the Greek (the sources for the KJV) are what should be relied upon.

Thing is though I do also believe even the KJV renderings are not blanket condemnations of all homosexual or even all male homosexual affection. And in some cases it's simply a matter of understanding the context of what those words meant in 1611 rather then what man has changed them to mean today.

In fact in some cases the modern versions are more blatantly anti Homosexual then the KJV.  Which tells me the perception that The Bible condemns Homosexuality is something Satan really wants to promote.  There is a popular meme out there that a "Lesbian goddess worshiper" helped write the NIV and that's why it removed Sodomite.  Regardless of if such a person was involved however the NIV does blatantly condemn Homosexuality in the New Testament.  In verses where the KJV is more ambiguous.

The point is, the common understanding of the relevant verses is based on just casually reciting the way they're usually rendered in modern English without putting much thought into them. What I have done is put a lot of thought and study into it - always under the starting premise that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inherent Word of God, using Scripture to interpret Scripture and doing so logically and consistently.

I've written other articles about sex and marriage in the Bible, and in general, which would be useful to cross reference here.

Part 2: The Sin of Sodom
Part 3: Leviticus 18 and 20
Part 4: Romans 1
Part 5: Corinthians and Timothy
Part 6: Condoned Homosexual Affection
 I also have this Dissertation on MyTumblr. So if you have a Tumblr account, feel free to Re-blog parts of it to spread the word.  Also to view them all together on one label on this Blog.

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

Some advise for fellow Christians on moral law and how to discern it.

First off, study the context of any Bible verse condemning something, to see what the intent of the Law is. Cause Jesus saying "God made the Sabbath for Man not Man for the Sabbath" shows that he wants us to follow the intent of the law more so then the letter of it.

I've spent a lot of time arguing that Christians need to stop labeling things a Sin that I point out The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn like they think it does.

But one thought that may enter one's mind is, as big a book as The Bible is, can it really address every single hypothetical Sin that could possibly happen?

There are only three areas where I feel Sin can be defined broadly.

Any act of worship to a false god, or occult ritual, whether or not it's a pagan practice specifically addressed in The Bible is obviously a violation of the first Two Commandments, and of Jesus's Command to Love God with all our heart, mind, body and soul. Matthew 22:37-28.

Anything you do that harms another person, or violates their rights is a violation of the Golden Rule Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." and to Love our Neighbor as we Love ourselves, Matthew 22:39. The word translated "men" there is Anthropos, which means Man as in Mankind, it's not actually Gender specific, neither Greek or Hebrew used the same word for both those meanings as we do. So yes Jesus's wording of The Golden Rule applies to our treatment to women too. Which is why I recommend starting with that when arguing with Anti-Christians who think The Bible is pro-Rape.

Third, the fact that as a believer our Bodies are the Temple of God, because we have The Holy Spirit indwelling in us, means doing things harmful to ourselves and our own health can be sinful.

In summery, things that harm your relationship with God, with your fellow Man, or your own body are sinful, and you shouldn't need specific Bible verses thrown at you to figure that out if your trying to Follow the Law of Love and being led by The Holy Spirit.

As a Libertarian I believe the Civil Laws of government should address only category two.

And all the stuff in The Bible used to show that God judges even our thoughts. Are all references to thinking about things that are sinful. But that doesn't mean you've sinned as soon as your tempted, the sin is in indulging in those thoughts.

Thing is, pretty much all specific things The Bible condemns fit into one of those three categories as well. The exceptions being mostly the superficial aspects of the Mosaic Law which Christians are clearly not held to, from the Sabbath and Circumcision to Dietary Laws. But even those have potential health benefits.

And after that, some of the things Paul says that he never intended to be taken as outright Moral Law, but merely advise for how Christians should present themselves, but that a lot of modern Christian take as moral law anyway. Like the verses about men having short hair and gender specific dress codes.

Prostitution is the only major Moral Law that one could have trouble seeing how it fits into those three categories. But it does carry a health risk, as a Libertarian I know that the heath risks would be minimized a great deal if it was legal (and it was legal under the civil law code parts of the Mosaic Law). But they'll never go away completely, restaurants are legal and sometimes they get away with violating their health codes. Any time you have sexual relations with a complete stranger you're taking a risk, both in terms of STDs and other safety risks.

Which is why as open as my attitude towards sex is, I do still feel it's a bad idea to have random sex with strangers, paid for or not. It's best to limit your love life to people you know and trust.

And to fellow Christians, we should avoid getting sexually or romantically involved with unbelievers. Which leads to how prostitution is related to the first category, it is often referenced in The Bible as allegorical of Idolatry for a reason, your lover can be an influence on the way you think. And that can happen even if the unbeliever isn't intentionally seeking to influence their lover's religion. So no I'm not saying every non-Christian is like a stereotypical exotic pagan temptress from an old Hollywood Biblical Epic.

As I've argued elsewhere the intent of Adultery laws is to prevent children from being born without a family. And therefore I don't feel adultery laws should apply to non reproductive sex. However, if either spouse is uncomfortable with it or not aware of it that is a violation of trust.

All the things I argue against traditional convention as things that aren't sinful, or at least not the mortal wroth disfellowshipping someone over sins most Christians think they are. Are all things that can in no way fit into any of those three categories. Anything can be unhealthy if you do it too much, but it's also been scientifically shown that moderately engaging in masturbation actually has health benefits.

Anal sex has health risks, even if your certain your partner has no STDs it's been argued to be potentially physically damaging to the anus. But contrary to popular assumption Anal isn't the only thing Gay men can or do engage in. In fact studies at different times have suggested the majority don't even like it. Consensual sex between two adults who love and trust each other of the same gender can in no way be argued to violate the Law of Love. Nor can sex between two adults who love and trust each other but who aren't married.

Satan wants people to think God condemns things he didn't just as much as he wants people to think sins aren't sinful, maybe even more so.

That statement I'm sure is shocking to many. But let's go back and study the origin of Sin and Satan's deception of humanity in Genesis 3.

Commentaries of Genesis do a good job of pointing out how the first thing The Serpent does is misquote what God said. But what "conservative" commentators tend to avoid emphasizing is that his misquotation was for the purpose of making God's word sound more restrictive then it was. There was only one single tree they couldn't eat from, but the Serpent makes it sound almost like the exact opposite, as if it was very few trees they could eat from.

Then, commentators do a good Job of pointing out how Eve's reaction seems to imply Adam had incorrectly taught her what God said. But again avoid putting any emphasis on that her misunderstanding of the command likewise made the command sound even more restrictive then it was, as if they weren't allowed to even go near the tree.

In fact Christians are constantly encouraging this exact same attitude that laid behind why Adam probably taught it the way he did. Telling people that because of the commands against drunkenness we probably shouldn't even go in bars. Forgetting that Jesus eat with sinners (as well as the Pharisees who he really didn't approve of).

So keep that in mind next time you see the very fact that the World and/or the Occult is encouraging something your church told you to view as a sin, as further confirmation it is a sin. Consider that Satan might want to reinforce the wrong views on Moral Law that many Christians hold.

I'm tired of being told I'm the one interpreting God's Word loosely because I don't consider every single act of divergent behavior a mortal sin. When I'm the one who understands these passages as talking about specific things, in specific contexts, for specific reasons. I hold these interpretations because of the same Hermeneutic principles that lead me to be a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist, a PreMillennial Futurist, and to firmly believe in Salvation by Faith Alone and Eternal Security.

I absolutely still consider more then enough things sinful to justify "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", that can be demonstrated from the Sermon on the Mount. So don't act like I'm a moral relativist who rejects absolutes.

While Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 5, and other places talk about disfellowshiping Christians who are habitually engaging in Sins that obviously violate the Law of Love (2 Corinthians 2 clarifies to forgive them and let them back in when they've fixed their issues). Or who teach Damnable heresies (not any incorrect doctrine, but one that effects Salvation, contradicting Justification by Faith Alone, or that Jesus is the only Way). Romans 14 also talks about not passing judgment on fellow Christians. Just because the Holy Spirit is convicting you personally to refrain from a certain activity, doesn't mean it's leading all believers to the same choice. He has different walks for each of us.

I've been kicked out of Christian Message Boards and Facebook groups for expressing my view that The Bible doesn't Condemn Homosexuality. But these same boards do have people expressing variant views on Salvation, including people who don't even agree with "by Faith Alone".

Likewise, that Christian dating website, ChristianMingle, won't let you sign up identifying as Homosexual or Bisexual. But you are allowed to identify as someone who drinks regularly, drinking alcohol is condemned in far more verses then all the supposed homosexuality ones.

In fact there is no other areas where their being restrictive, any denomination can qualify as "Christian" for that site, including Catholics. Even if there where verses, right in the Sermon on the Mount, declaring "though shalt not love the same gender" and defining it as something wroth disfellowshiping over. You'd still never convince me any devout Catholic is more of a Christian then a homosexual who believers in Salvation by Faith through Grace only, and Eternal Security.