Sinful lust or normally functioning hormones?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
This is exactly why I have to question it when people say masturbation, oral, and non-"regular" sexual acts (the kind that won't result in pregnancy) are acceptable for unmarried people.

So let's say Brother X has a bit of a moment "to himself..." What, exactly, puts it into his mind to do so? I'm guessing it's not a copy of Better Homes & Gardens, unless he someone has a real affection for plants.

Or what if Brother Y and Sister Z decided to participate in some of these acts that aren't explicitly forbidden by any particular Bible passage? I would assume they are acting out their thoughts -- so what exactly, got them to a place of having such thoughts?


If we could zero in on Brother X, Brother Y, and Sister Z's thoughts right before, and especially right during the moment, what would we find? Would they be perfectly ok with it if their thoughts could be projected onto a screen for everyone to see in that moment? Would it cause them any sort of shame or embarrassment, most especially knowing that God would see and judge what they were thinking?

Would we find out that, yes indeed, people really ARE thinking about wholesome things like cleaning their bathrooms, shopping for organic produce, and helping that little old lady across the street -- all while engaging in explicit sexual acts that arouse, stimulate, and satisfy their bodies?

Shoot, if that's possible, I'm pretty sure everyone here would sign right up.

But until someone can convince me that people who are masturbating and having oral sex are thinking about Bible reading and missions work while concluding the purposes of their actions, I have to stand by being convicted that it can't be a part of "staying pure" if it is neither preceded by nor concluded with thoughts of purity.

Again, however, these are only MY convictions, and I am certainly not trying to put them on anyone else. Rather, I'm just trying to share an alternative point of view to what was presented.


Well, I think your standing on solid ground with your convictions. I would agree 100%.
 
Nov 26, 2012
3,095
1,050
113
Something else I wanted to add to the thoughts above but ran out of time for the edit...

Since my early 20's, I've tried to read the Bible from cover to cover on a regular basis. When I get done with one version, I pick up another because I'm hoping it will help me pick up on any "gaps" between translations that I missed before.

This time around, I've been trying to do regular reading for a year but have so far only made it to the middle of Jeremiah -- but this means that I've spent an entire year in an "Old Testament" mentality, because aside from church services and devotionals, all I've been reading is the Old Testament.

One thing that has stood out to me time and time again is that God very rarely blesses because He is pleased with someone's behavior. Yes, it happens, but it certainly seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Time and time again as the Israelites made it to the Promised Land and then went through a plethora of kings deemed so evil that barely more than their names were recorded, God is in the equivalent of an abusive relationship -- with His people being the abusers.

The chapters I have gotten through are a vicious cycle of God reprimanding His people for their disobedience, then drawing them back, then suffering the same old humiliation time and time again as they depend on everyone and everything but Him -- which God equates to adultery. At one time, He even says that he was divorcing them:

"But you have played the harlot with many lovers, yet you return to Me," says the Lord (Jeremiah 3:1,) even going on to say, "Where have you not lain with men?" And for the most graphic description of all (so much so that I won't rewrite it here,) there is always the story of the idolatrous sisters in Ezekiel 23.

In Jeremiah 3:8, God has had enough: " Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce."

But yet in verse 14, God can't give up His beloved: " Return, O backsliding children, for I am married to you. I will give you shepherds according to My hear, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding."

My point is, God rarely blesses people because they have done what He says or because He is pleased with (or condones) their behavior.

God blesses, simply, because He is God. Over and over again, God says that He blesses His people because of HIMSELF, not because of people's actions or obedience lining up with His will. Sometimes when God promised to do something, He swore on His own name because there is nothing higher to swear upon. So God kept His promise because He had made the highest oath possible that He would, regardless of human choice.

God also says many times Himself that the reason He is fulfilling His blessings and promises is because that's who He is -- His very nature is to fulfill His word, as He cannot lie -- and He is doing so for His own sake (keeping inline with His own Self,) rather than the actions of human beings (which are most often disobedient to Him.)
I agree with all you have said. What wasn’t said was the part that God does not condone polygamy. Paul didn’t even oppose polygamy. He merely stated that a deacon should only have one wife. Also he discourages marriage altogether because it divides one’s ability to serve the Lord. He never abolished polygamy. Christ reiterated a man and woman cleave to be one, and that signifies the union of oneness in marriage but never abolishes the concubine laws for sex slaves.

The argument can go on and on because there is no scripture that completely disallows it. We are under the New Covenant, however. We are not imprisoned by fleshy needs. Any Christian walking in the Spirit will never need more than one wife, if he needs a wife at all.
 
Nov 26, 2012
3,095
1,050
113
Wanting to be extremely wary about the ways we justify our own sin or flirting with the lines, I think most people make distinctions. Is fantasizing about the celebrity you'll never meet as bad as fantasizing about a co-worker? Certainly you'll have much more opportunity to act on your fantasies with the co-worker and that could more easily lead to worse? Are written and video porn (and I think we've mentioned before on this forum about most romance novels are basically emotional porn for women) equally bad? If you have no one in particular in mind while self servicing is that better or worse than having an actual object of your "affection"? What if you decide to keep a fictional character in mind? And then there are the stereotypical inflatable dolls or high tech companion robots?

And after asking all those questions, it certainly is clear that if we start subdividing the issue, it gets really murky really quickly. This might be part of the reason why church teaching so often draws the line so restrictive because we don't know for sure where that line is and so like the pharisees and scribes of their day, we draw the borders so wide that we know we have no chance of accidentally sinning (and then find all the little loopholes to gratify the sinful nature).
When I was reading this I pictured Moses reading the Laws and hands going up in the crowd, “What about lifelike, robot masterbatory devices?”
Then another, “What about battery operated buddies (BOB for short)?
Sometimes there just isn’t the perfect answer.
 

cinder

Senior Member
Mar 26, 2014
4,328
2,361
113
When I was reading this I pictured Moses reading the Laws and hands going up in the crowd, “What about lifelike, robot masterbatory devices?”
Then another, “What about battery operated buddies (BOB for short)?
Sometimes there just isn’t the perfect answer.
Now I picture another person in the crowd asking "wait what's a robot? For that matter what's a battery?" The crazy thing about all the sexual laws in the law, is that it all had to be spelled out because in the cultures they'd been (and were going to be) exposed to a lot of that stuff was normalized in the culture.
 

seoulsearch

OutWrite Trouble
May 23, 2009
14,943
4,587
113
I agree with all you have said. What wasn’t said was the part that God does not condone polygamy. Paul didn’t even oppose polygamy. He merely stated that a deacon should only have one wife. Also he discourages marriage altogether because it divides one’s ability to serve the Lord. He never abolished polygamy. Christ reiterated a man and woman cleave to be one, and that signifies the union of oneness in marriage but never abolishes the concubine laws for sex slaves.

The argument can go on and on because there is no scripture that completely disallows it. We are under the New Covenant, however. We are not imprisoned by fleshy needs. Any Christian walking in the Spirit will never need more than one wife, if he needs a wife at all.
As I had said in Post #115, when God set the rules for the king that His people would have over them, He says plainly in Deuteronomy 17:17 -- "For the Lord has said to you, 'He (the king) SHALL NOT multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away."

Unless I am somehow misunderstanding this, I'm not sure how much clearer it could be than that. Multiple wives (and in modern times, husbands) will lead one's heart away from the Lord. And this was God's direct command that a king was NOT to do this, not someone like Paul who was writing a letter of discussion.

I had not even heard of this passage until I came across it in my own Bible study, and I'm not sure why I've never heard it mentioned during the many back-and-forth arguments I've heard regarding the acceptance of polygamy.

If God said that His kings were not to take multiple wives because it would cause their hearts to turn from Him, how could the non-royal man expect to be an exception in God's eyes?

I see this as being very similar to the discussion we're having about masturbation and oral sex -- even if the Bible doesn't specifically prohibit it, what leads up to it, and what are the results? As I said, people don't engage in alternative sex acts while dwelling on things that are "pure, lovely, and of good report" as the Bible tells us to do (Philippians 4:8.) Now, if there are people out there who are convinced they can do so without thinking anything questionable, that's between them and God, and I have to say that they have my utmost admiration, because I honestly don't think it can be achieved.

Similarly, if a man (or woman) thinks they can take on multiple sex partners to care for and try to both physically and emotionally fulfill without being distracted from the Lord, more power to them, as God is the ultimate judge of the heart.

But again, I'd like to see someone with multiple spouses who remained faithful and focused to God without being sidetracked by having to please so many people, because again, I just don't believe it's possible.

And as I keep saying, these are just my own convictions, stated simply because I wanted to present a different point of view.
 
Nov 26, 2012
3,095
1,050
113
Now I picture another person in the crowd asking "wait what's
As I had said in Post #115, when God set the rules for the king that His people would have over them, He says plainly in Deuteronomy 17:17 -- "For the Lord has said to you, 'He (the king) SHALL NOT multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away."

Unless I am somehow misunderstanding this, I'm not sure how much clearer it could be than that. Multiple wives (and in modern times, husbands) will lead one's heart away from the Lord. And this was God's direct command that a king was NOT to do this, not someone like Paul who was writing a letter of discussion.

I had not even heard of this passage until I came across it in my own Bible study, and I'm not sure why I've never heard it mentioned during the many back-and-forth arguments I've heard regarding the acceptance of polygamy.

If God said that His kings were not to take multiple wives because it would cause their hearts to turn from Him, how could the non-royal man expect to be an exception in God's eyes?

I see this as being very similar to the discussion we're having about masturbation and oral sex -- even if the Bible doesn't specifically prohibit it, what leads up to it, and what are the results? As I said, people don't engage in alternative sex acts while dwelling on things that are "pure, lovely, and of good report" as the Bible tells us to do (Philippians 4:8.) Now, if there are people out there who are convinced they can do so without thinking anything questionable, that's between them and God, and I have to say that they have my utmost admiration, because I honestly don't think it can be achieved.

Similarly, if a man (or woman) thinks they can take on multiple sex partners to care for and try to both physically and emotionally fulfill without being distracted from the Lord, more power to them, as God is the ultimate judge of the heart.

But again, I'd like to see someone with multiple spouses who remained faithful and focused to God without being sidetracked by having to please so many people, because again, I just don't believe it's possible.

And as I keep saying, these are just my own convictions, stated simply because I wanted to present a different point of view.
I agree with you. I am in no way recommending polygamy. To serve God most faithfully, I would suggest chastity, and abstaining from all sexual contact.
 

seoulsearch

OutWrite Trouble
May 23, 2009
14,943
4,587
113
I agree with all you have said. What wasn’t said was the part that God does not condone polygamy. Paul didn’t even oppose polygamy. He merely stated that a deacon should only have one wife. Also he discourages marriage altogether because it divides one’s ability to serve the Lord. He never abolished polygamy. Christ reiterated a man and woman cleave to be one, and that signifies the union of oneness in marriage but never abolishes the concubine laws for sex slaves.

The argument can go on and on because there is no scripture that completely disallows it. We are under the New Covenant, however. We are not imprisoned by fleshy needs. Any Christian walking in the Spirit will never need more than one wife, if he needs a wife at all.
For my own self, I personally don't take Paul's statement that a deacon should have only one wife as acceptance or condoning polygamy. A deacon (leader in the church) is to set an example of a standard of holiness to God for the people, and one that others are to emulate.

The very fact that Israel had kings at all was an example of God's permission and most certainly not His will or endorsement. When Samuel clearly tries to tell the people (1 Samuel 8:7) that GOD wants to be their king and does NOT, in any way, shape, or form want them to have a human king like the nations around them, the people INSIST on having an earthly king, and so God tells Samuel, "They have not rejected YOU, but ME." In other words, they have firmly set their minds against God's original plan (fancy that,) and so God chooses to let them have their own way.

God Himself DID NOT want the people to have a regular king, but they insisted, and He allowed it. I have always seen polygamy as being more of the same. Deuteronomy illustrates that God strictly forbid His kings from having more than one wife; Paul says a deacon is to have only one wife. Why? Because multiple spouses lead one's heart way from God.

But I personally believe that this was yet another thing that the culture of the day made people's hearts stubborn about, and it was something they absolutely insisted on doing, so eventually God threw up His hands and basically said, "Fine. You're going to do what you want anyway," and looked instead at ways of using people's choices (including sinful ones) to fulfill His own plans. After all, it's what He's been doing since the very first downfall of man (and woman) kind.

If this is the standard God set for His own leaders, how could everyday regular people think, "I'm above that, I can have as many wives/husbands as I want, because I am somehow stronger and more spiritual than a mere deacon or king, so surely I can handle such a situation without ever being led astray!"

Shoot, if someone has that much confidence and the spiritual backbone to prove it, who am I to stand in the way.

To each their own convictions, but I'm only presenting mine because as I said, I have never once heard someone bring up the passage in Deuteronomy in which God forbids His kings to have multiple wives, and I really wish someone would have.
 

seoulsearch

OutWrite Trouble
May 23, 2009
14,943
4,587
113
I agree with you. I am in no way recommending polygamy. To serve God most faithfully, I would suggest chastity, and abstaining from all sexual contact.
I actually really appreciate the calm and meaningful discussion and really want to thank you for it.

Trust me, I'm REALLY having to pull on some VERY old strings here to remember some of these passages, and I'm sure it's a form of spiritual boot camp that God said I was needing! :ROFL:

Thank you most of all for such honest posts about marriage.

I wish more married people would tell us the good, the bad, and the ugly of being married, rather than just making it sound like marriage is the cure to all our single problems.
 
Nov 26, 2012
3,095
1,050
113
For my own self, I personally don't take Paul's statement that a deacon should have only one wife as acceptance or condoning polygamy. A deacon (leader in the church) is to set an example of a standard of holiness to God for the people, and one that others are to emulate.

The very fact that Israel had kings at all was an example of God's permission and most certainly not His will or endorsement. When Samuel clearly tries to tell the people (1 Samuel 8:7) that GOD wants to be their king and does NOT, in any way, shape, or form want them to have a human king like the nations around them, the people INSIST on having an earthly king, and so God tells Samuel, "They have not rejected YOU, but ME." In other words, they have firmly set their minds against God's original plan (fancy that,) and so God chooses to let them have their own way.

God Himself DID NOT want the people to have a regular king, but they insisted, and He allowed it. I have always seen polygamy as being more of the same. Deuteronomy illustrates that God strictly forbid His kings from having more than one wife; Paul says a deacon is to have only one wife. Why? Because multiple spouses lead one's heart way from God.

But I personally believe that this was yet another thing that the culture of the day made people's hearts stubborn about, and it was something they absolutely insisted on doing, so eventually God threw up His hands and basically said, "Fine. You're going to do what you want anyway," and looked instead at ways of using people's choices (including sinful ones) to fulfill His own plans. After all, it's what He's been doing since the very first downfall of man (and woman) kind.

If this is the standard God set for His own leaders, how could everyday regular people think, "I'm above that, I can have as many wives/husbands as I want, because I am somehow stronger and more spiritual than a mere deacon or king, so surely I can handle such a situation without ever being led astray!"

Shoot, if someone has that much confidence and the spiritual backbone to prove it, who am I to stand in the way.

To each their own convictions, but I'm only presenting mine because as I said, I have never once heard someone bring up the passage in Deuteronomy in which God forbids His kings to have multiple wives, and I really wish someone would have.
My interpretation is that roles of leadership means you can’t be divided. You must serve the people. Someone with a big farm still might benefit from multiple wives and lots of kids, as was the custom.
 

seoulsearch

OutWrite Trouble
May 23, 2009
14,943
4,587
113
My interpretation is that roles of leadership means you can’t be divided. You must serve the people. Someone with a big farm still might benefit from multiple wives and lots of kids, as was the custom.
There might be surface benefits, but I personally don't agree that God approves of or condones multiple spouses.

I could be wrong, but this is one point on which we will disagree.

Thank you at least for a polite discussion rather than an all-out brawl. 🤓
 

cinder

Senior Member
Mar 26, 2014
4,328
2,361
113
Interesting sidenote is that I've heard that polygamous societies (now and in the past) have had much more violence (especially among the young men competing (now with all the old married men) for the women) than monogamous societies. Also with much more lenient divorce laws, no reason to keep multiple spouses around as spouses .
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,177
113
i watched a doco on AMy Tan, famed author of The Joy Luck Club, and other novels.
Her mothers second marriage was as the fourth concubine to an abusive, wealthy man in China.

By all accounts it was horrifc, but then that was maybe just her bad luck to be married to someone so awful, or, as she began to rue that she was so attractive and naive to be married to someone like that.

To get out of that marriage, she had an affair and used a bit of trickery, then fled to the US to be with Amys dad. Amy had no idea that her mother had left 3 daughters behind in China, and also had a son that died young, and possibly other abortions till she was in her 30s.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,177
113
China has sinced banned multiple marriages when it became a republic.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,177
113
some had raised the point if you get a moment alone you go and masturbate?
Um no.

if you are actually gullible enough to BUY magazines (why? they are mostly advertising. you can get them free from retailers when they expire, they have to bin them otherwise) Id just read them. Maybe cut them up.

but most magazines are pretty trashy, if you are more discenring you wouldnt even go in for the better homes and gardens (for rich people with heaps of money) vogue or god forbid, womans day. Find something worth reading. Or do crossword puzzles.
 

proverbs35

Senior Member
Nov 10, 2012
825
239
43
Polygamy...

[King] must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. Deu 17:17

I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 2 Sam 12:8

Honestly, those two verses seem to be contradicting one another. Although I have not been able to find any Bible verses that explicitly outlaw polygamy, research shows that polygamy has a negative impact on women, children and society.

Africa is a polygamous continent.
Africa is also one of the poorest continents in the world. HIV/AIDS is an epidemic in Africa. Many African husbands have sex outside marriage with prostitutes and/or other men. They get infected with HIV/AIDS and spread it to their multiple wives. Millions of African children have become orphans because they have lost one or both parents to the disease.

In many polygamous countries like Africa ...
-there are high rates of domestic violence.
-wife beating, female genital mutilation and child marriage are legal.
-HIV/AIDS is a national health crisis.

Divorce rates are significantly lower in polygamous cultures because women have little to no rights, little access to divorce and are generally unable to financially support themselves outside of marriage. However, lower divorce rates do not equate marital satisfaction or the wellbeing of the family unit.

The United Nations is advocating that polygamy be abolished because of the negative impact that it has on women, children and society.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pe...d-and-mostly-confined-to-a-few-regions/?amp=1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1L0009

https://www.npr.org/2017/02/22/516582995/muslim-leader-in-nigeria-to-propose-law-banning-polygamy

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-dangerously-unless-women-are-more-empowered/

https://nation.africa/kenya/news/po...-to-risk-of-hiv-aids-warns-new-survey--640462

Although I have not been able to find any Bible verses that explicitly outlaw polygamy, considering the negative impact that it has on women, children and society, I do not believe in or support polygamy.

Why would a provisional God condone or encourage a practice that has such a negative impact on women, children and society? That's illogical. It doesn't make sense. It does not line up with the Biblical instructions for husbands in Proverbs and the NT.

In the NT, husbands are instructed to ..
- LOVE their wives like Christ loved the church. Eph 5:25
- DIE for their wives. Ephesians 5:25
- NOURISH and CHERISH their wives. Eph 5:29
- should NOT BE HARSH with their wives. Col 3:19
- PRAISE their wives for their good deeds. Pro 31:28
- TRUST their wives, if they are virtuous. Pro 31:11
- HONOR their wives. 1 Pet 3:7
- dwell with their wives in an UNDERSTANDING way. 1 Pet 3:7
- Recognize and treat their wives as co-heirs of grace. 1 Pet 3:7
- be FAITHFUL to their own wives. Pro 5:15
- be happy with the wife he married when he was young. Pro 5:18
- be attracted to their own wives and stay deeply in love. Pro 5:19

Let's be honest, husbands STRUGGLE to AGAPE love, die for, nourish, cherish, not be harsh with, praise, trust, understand and be happy with ONE wife.

King David have multiple wives, yet he was not sexually satisfied. David's polygamous lifestyle did not prevent him from lusting and committing adultery with another man's wife. In other words, polygamy was not the solution for David's lust problem.

In the OT, polygamy was not a harmonious practice. There was a lot of jealousy and infighting between the siblings of various mothers.

God hates the one who sows seeds of discord among brothers. Pro 6:19

Why would God condone or encourage a practice (polygamy) that is linked to higher rates of discord between brothers? I do not believe that God does because that does not make any sense. It would be illogical.
 

Lynx

Folksy yet erudite
Aug 13, 2014
24,933
8,176
113
This is becoming such an entertaining thread!

Kudos to all the participants who have been discussing this calmly. This is a topic I usually expect to see a lot of irritation about. Y'all are disagreeing, but not taking disagreements personally... A forgotten art.
 

Lynx

Folksy yet erudite
Aug 13, 2014
24,933
8,176
113
About the business with multiple wives...

Specifically the king was adjured to not ACQUIRE MANY wives. Multiple was okay, having them was okay, but he wasn't supposed to actively chase after a whole bunch of them.

Of course that means we can debate what quantity constitutes "many" and where the line is drawn over how active one must be in pursuing them to transgress this command. But just happening to have more than one wife was not forbidden in the OT, even to the king. (And yeah, when you're the king you CAN "just happen to have" more than one wife without actively pursuing them.)
 
M

MoonCresta

Guest
And this is why Christians hide their struggles. Everything is a sin. So now if you're single and have a desire for sex you're a selfish sinner.
Sounds very much like what you'd expect to hear a pharisee say.
Again, Sub - you're right on the money.
 

seoulsearch

OutWrite Trouble
May 23, 2009
14,943
4,587
113
This is becoming such an entertaining thread!

Kudos to all the participants who have been discussing this calmly. This is a topic I usually expect to see a lot of irritation about. Y'all are disagreeing, but not taking disagreements personally... A forgotten art.
How dare you accuse us of discussing things calmly and not taking things personally!!!

Fortunately, I am here to take your comment personally -- and boy, am I ever offended!

(What? Did you really think there could be an actual peaceful streak for more than one page? Didn't you know there are strict forum laws against this?!)

After all, who am I to break the rules. :p:cool::censored: