Sinful lust or normally functioning hormones?
- Thread starter cinder
- Start date
-
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.
Hi Proverbs35,
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this very informative post.
I too have often wondered about the verse in 2 Sam 12:8 in which God says He gave Saul's wives into David's arms. (And this is NOT to try to argue with or refute your excellent post in any way -- I completely agree with you -- I'm just thinking out loud.)
I have come to see this as more of a political affirmation of God passing the crown of authority from Saul's household onto David rather than it being an endorsement of polygamy.
After all, in Genesis 35, Jacob's oldest son Reuben (whose mother was Leah, the unloved wife,) slept with Bilah, who was Jacob's concubine and Rachel's (the loved wife) handmaiden, who had born sons for Rachel in her place. I just read an article stating that this was very strategic, reasoning that Reuben slept with Bilah right after Rachel's death because he was trying to prevent Bilah from taking Rachel's place as the next favored wife. In other words, Reuben slept with his father's concubine because he was trying to establish and even overthrow the political power within the family.
And this is how I interpret God "giving David Saul's wives into his arms" as well. I see the statement as being one that says, "I shifted every last bit of power and influence from Saul's household onto yours instead," because at that time, you couldn't stake a more personal claim than sleeping with the ruler's wives and concubines.
I think it's important to remember that just because God blesses people, it doesn't automatically mean that He approves of or endorses their behavior. This would be like saying that just because God blessed prostitutes and the sons of prostitutes, He must somehow approve of or endorse prostitution.
Or that because He blessed Moses and David, He must approve of murder and adultery as well.
If God actually had His original way, David would have in fact never been put on the throne to begin with, because the Bible makes it clear that God never intended, nor wanted His people to have a human king. HE wanted to be their king, but they refused, and so, in frustration to human stubbornness, God established human kings and set up laws governing them -- not because He approved of or endorsed having a king, but because the people insisted.
Now, I may very well be wrong in my view that God does not approve of nor endorse polygamy or even concubines -- and hopefully He will correct me in this life if I am wrong -- but I do think that it is an egregious error to assume that blessing might mean approval of behavior. It might, but it doesn't take much Bible study to realize that God very rarely blesses humans because of their behavior. More often than not, God chose to bless simply because He said He would and He fulfills all of His promises. In fact, there are many times in which God plainly says, "These people disobey me continuously, but for My own sake, I will fulfill what I promised to them."
Again, I am certainly not trying to refute anything that you have stated in your post, @proverbs35.
I'm just circling back around to this subject because the question, "If God didn't approve of polygamy, why did He bless Jacob?" was asked in an earlier post.
Thank again for such a helpful and detailed post, @proverbs35!
It's always good to see you in the forums.
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this very informative post.
I too have often wondered about the verse in 2 Sam 12:8 in which God says He gave Saul's wives into David's arms. (And this is NOT to try to argue with or refute your excellent post in any way -- I completely agree with you -- I'm just thinking out loud.)
I have come to see this as more of a political affirmation of God passing the crown of authority from Saul's household onto David rather than it being an endorsement of polygamy.
After all, in Genesis 35, Jacob's oldest son Reuben (whose mother was Leah, the unloved wife,) slept with Bilah, who was Jacob's concubine and Rachel's (the loved wife) handmaiden, who had born sons for Rachel in her place. I just read an article stating that this was very strategic, reasoning that Reuben slept with Bilah right after Rachel's death because he was trying to prevent Bilah from taking Rachel's place as the next favored wife. In other words, Reuben slept with his father's concubine because he was trying to establish and even overthrow the political power within the family.
And this is how I interpret God "giving David Saul's wives into his arms" as well. I see the statement as being one that says, "I shifted every last bit of power and influence from Saul's household onto yours instead," because at that time, you couldn't stake a more personal claim than sleeping with the ruler's wives and concubines.
I think it's important to remember that just because God blesses people, it doesn't automatically mean that He approves of or endorses their behavior. This would be like saying that just because God blessed prostitutes and the sons of prostitutes, He must somehow approve of or endorse prostitution.
Or that because He blessed Moses and David, He must approve of murder and adultery as well.
If God actually had His original way, David would have in fact never been put on the throne to begin with, because the Bible makes it clear that God never intended, nor wanted His people to have a human king. HE wanted to be their king, but they refused, and so, in frustration to human stubbornness, God established human kings and set up laws governing them -- not because He approved of or endorsed having a king, but because the people insisted.
Now, I may very well be wrong in my view that God does not approve of nor endorse polygamy or even concubines -- and hopefully He will correct me in this life if I am wrong -- but I do think that it is an egregious error to assume that blessing might mean approval of behavior. It might, but it doesn't take much Bible study to realize that God very rarely blesses humans because of their behavior. More often than not, God chose to bless simply because He said He would and He fulfills all of His promises. In fact, there are many times in which God plainly says, "These people disobey me continuously, but for My own sake, I will fulfill what I promised to them."
Again, I am certainly not trying to refute anything that you have stated in your post, @proverbs35.
I'm just circling back around to this subject because the question, "If God didn't approve of polygamy, why did He bless Jacob?" was asked in an earlier post.
Thank again for such a helpful and detailed post, @proverbs35!
It's always good to see you in the forums.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Dang it, Cat!
How can I pick a fight with you when you're being so agreeable???
Everyone knows we're supposed to arguing here!
How can I pick a fight with you when you're being so agreeable???
Everyone knows we're supposed to arguing here!
-
1
- Show all
Let’s be intellectually honest about a few things. First of all comparing modern day Africa to OT Israel is hardly accurate. Perhaps the only similarity is polygamy. Second, I have one wife and four children. They are all competitive by nature, in and out of the home. This caused them to excel, not hold them back. Third, asking a man to love and cherish his wife goes right along with her giving him respect. Perhaps men today struggle with loving their wives because their wives are increasingly unlovable. Show me a woman who cares exclusively for her family and gives respect to her husband, and I will show you a cherished wife. Just like grafting branches to roots, for two to become one, each needs to grow into the other. It’s not successful if one rejects the other. It’s about compatibility, patience and favourable conditions. Today’s women are taught independence. There is no grafting with independence. The root and the branch function codependently to produce fruit. For the record, you can graft three different branches to the same root, all producing different fruit. I’m not saying polygamy works today, I’m just saying God didn’t discourage it.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
This would also explain why one of Absaloms first acts (encouraged by his advisors) after David fled the city was to sleep with all of the concubines that David had left behind. And why Adonijah wanting to marry David's human hot water bottle (that was basically her job description) was seen as a treasonous act by King Solomon.
The point, which was supported with multiple links, is that polygamy, everywhere it has been practiced, has had tons of similar negative consequences for that society. Not sure why you think your family situation would be relevant to the discussion since it is farther removed culturally and economically from Ancient Israel than modern Africa is which you already dismissed as an inaccurate comparison. So what exactly is your point? That men shouldn't be held responsible for the way they treat women now because women are so much more independent and difficult? Of course history (and some modern day cultures) shows us what has happened when women didn't have a cultural option to be independent and self sufficient in a respectable way and that was all the men's doing and it was worse and that's why women needed greater independence.
The point, which was supported with multiple links, is that polygamy, everywhere it has been practiced, has had tons of similar negative consequences for that society. Not sure why you think your family situation would be relevant to the discussion since it is farther removed culturally and economically from Ancient Israel than modern Africa is which you already dismissed as an inaccurate comparison. So what exactly is your point? That men shouldn't be held responsible for the way they treat women now because women are so much more independent and difficult? Of course history (and some modern day cultures) shows us what has happened when women didn't have a cultural option to be independent and self sufficient in a respectable way and that was all the men's doing and it was worse and that's why women needed greater independence.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The point of including my family was in retort to there being jealousy and infighting. Competition increases strength of character and strength in general. Polygamy has not been practiced or endorsed by Christians. In that aspect you can’t even compare it to any other culture. Without God men and women each manipulate people and situations for personal gain. An abuser will abuse, a cheater will cheat, a liar will lie and a murderer will murder. I would suggest that the degradation of societies noted had many problems derived from selfish ambition and sociopathic behaviour. This is all symptomatic of a fallen world. We can debate the advantages and disadvantages of women’s liberation another time, in another thread. All I can say now is that regardless of merit, the product is not entirely positive. It caused men and women to grow apart, not together.
Hungry said, "Polygamy has not been practiced or endorsed by Christians. In that aspect you can’t even compare it to any other culture."
So, throughout Christian history (around 2000 years) Christians have not practiced or endorsed polygamy. Hmmmm...
Your statement suggests that modern Christians would somehow practice polygamy better than other cultures have done it. The idea that modern Christians could practice polygamy better than others (like Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon in the Bible) is presumptuous and speculative. We have no evidence or data to support the idea that modern Christians could practice polygamy better than our Jewish foreparents; many who were commended for their great faith.
Modern Christians do not practice monogamy well. Hence, the high divorce rate. Even among Christians who do not divorce, Christian counselors and clergy report high levels of marital dissatisfaction. A lot of married folk who stay together aren't happy either.
Hungry said, "We can debate the advantages and disadvantages of women’s liberation another time, in another thread. All I can say now is that regardless of merit, the product is not entirely positive. It caused men and women to grow apart, not together."
The same thing could be said about polygamy. It has caused men and women to grow apart, not together. It's true that polygamous cultures have lower divorce rates. On the other hand, polygamous cultures have higher rates of poverty, domestic violence, health crises and child marriage. Poverty, domestic violence, health crises and child marriage are not signs and symptoms of men and women GROWING together in unity.
So, throughout Christian history (around 2000 years) Christians have not practiced or endorsed polygamy. Hmmmm...
Your statement suggests that modern Christians would somehow practice polygamy better than other cultures have done it. The idea that modern Christians could practice polygamy better than others (like Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon in the Bible) is presumptuous and speculative. We have no evidence or data to support the idea that modern Christians could practice polygamy better than our Jewish foreparents; many who were commended for their great faith.
Modern Christians do not practice monogamy well. Hence, the high divorce rate. Even among Christians who do not divorce, Christian counselors and clergy report high levels of marital dissatisfaction. A lot of married folk who stay together aren't happy either.
Hungry said, "We can debate the advantages and disadvantages of women’s liberation another time, in another thread. All I can say now is that regardless of merit, the product is not entirely positive. It caused men and women to grow apart, not together."
The same thing could be said about polygamy. It has caused men and women to grow apart, not together. It's true that polygamous cultures have lower divorce rates. On the other hand, polygamous cultures have higher rates of poverty, domestic violence, health crises and child marriage. Poverty, domestic violence, health crises and child marriage are not signs and symptoms of men and women GROWING together in unity.
Sibling rivalry is somewhat natural. We can see rivalry among siblings with the same mother and father in scripture.
Cain killed Abel.
Jacob stole Esau's blessing.
We can also see in scripture that polygamy intensifies rivalry and discord between siblings.
Ishmael mocked Isaac so much that Abraham sent Ishmael and his mother away from the family home with no provisions. Gen 21:9
Joseph's brothers plotted to kill him, threw him in a pit and sold him into slavery. Gen 37:1-11
Amnon raped his sister Tamar. 2 Sam 13
Absalom killed his brother Amnon.
Solomon had his brother Adonijah put to death. 1 Kings 1:5-53
I realize that competition is natural, but is it biblical? What scriptures tell us that competition is good and that it increases strength of character? There's is a verse that suggests otherwise.
Do nothing out of rivalry or conceit, but in humility consider others as more important than yourselves. Phil 2:1-3
Competition can also breed jealousy. Jealousy is a form of discord, and we know that God is not pleased with discord among brothers. Pro 6:19
Polygamy does not solve or lessen sibling rivalry. Polygamy intensifies it. With each one of the polygamist families above, the siblings grew apart, not together.
Cain killed Abel.
Jacob stole Esau's blessing.
We can also see in scripture that polygamy intensifies rivalry and discord between siblings.
Ishmael mocked Isaac so much that Abraham sent Ishmael and his mother away from the family home with no provisions. Gen 21:9
Joseph's brothers plotted to kill him, threw him in a pit and sold him into slavery. Gen 37:1-11
Amnon raped his sister Tamar. 2 Sam 13
Absalom killed his brother Amnon.
Solomon had his brother Adonijah put to death. 1 Kings 1:5-53
I realize that competition is natural, but is it biblical? What scriptures tell us that competition is good and that it increases strength of character? There's is a verse that suggests otherwise.
Do nothing out of rivalry or conceit, but in humility consider others as more important than yourselves. Phil 2:1-3
Competition can also breed jealousy. Jealousy is a form of discord, and we know that God is not pleased with discord among brothers. Pro 6:19
Polygamy does not solve or lessen sibling rivalry. Polygamy intensifies it. With each one of the polygamist families above, the siblings grew apart, not together.
I think you are still missing the point. We can theorize all we want. Since all we only have a few inapplicable references, we can’t truly know if it would work or not. You are basing your examples on poverty torn Muslim countries, royal families of the Bible and how Joseph’s brothers were instrumental in getting him to Egypt to fulfill his destiny. Again, I’m not advocating for polygamy. I don’t even want one wife, let alone two or three. All I’m saying is that even with all of the truth that you have stated, God still didn’t forbid it.
Lust is feeding into your sexual desires that are unholy. If you have sexual desires for your spouse, that’s different than having sexual desires or thoughts for someone married to someone else, a person you’re not married to in general, kids, animals, etc. wanting to or being tempted to perform sexual acts other than in a holy marriage is not the sin, acting on those wants and indulging in them is sin. God gave us sexual desire as part of our human nature. It’s when people pervert it and use that sexual desire to do things of which God would not approve that it becomes the sin of lust.
Yes it does but God doesn’t make us repent for our thoughts because we can’t control them, you’d be asking for forgiveness every 20 seconds lol. We can control our actions. Temptation is the thought. Action is the sin. Remember Jesus was tempted. He hated having to die so much He was crying out to God having a mental break down and was so stressed he was sweating blood. He could’ve just saved Himself but then He would have ruined God’s plans for our salvation. But the Bible said he knew no sin. So clearly, being tempted is not a sin. He says flee from temptation so you are not led to sin. God punishes actions, not thoughts because they don’t always lead to sin. You can have a sinful thought and not act on it, so why would God punish us for that?
I think we CAN control our own thoughts but not those of other peoples...that would be a bit of weirdo mind control.
If youve never tried doing this WELL I have news for you. You CAN keep your mind out of the gutter!
its called 'going to your happy place' and also I think reading helps because when you are reading your mind is focused on the words and you have to think about the words, rather than anything else.
So you might choose a book to read (choose one that interests you...anything, but since we on a christian forum. lets choose the BIBLE.) start reading and then what do you end up thinking about?
If youve never tried doing this WELL I have news for you. You CAN keep your mind out of the gutter!
its called 'going to your happy place' and also I think reading helps because when you are reading your mind is focused on the words and you have to think about the words, rather than anything else.
So you might choose a book to read (choose one that interests you...anything, but since we on a christian forum. lets choose the BIBLE.) start reading and then what do you end up thinking about?
-
2
- Show all
God
God does look at intention but sin is sin whether you meant to sin or not. It’s not an excuse. When you do something God hates, it’s sin. Whether you stole because you wanted to or whether you stole because you can’t afford to feed yourself, it’s sin. God does not excuse sin no matter what it is. Especially when it comes to sex. There is no overlooking sin with God. If you want to have premarital sex just say that lol, but don’t twist God’s word in your heart and find some way to make it right...you will make a habit of fooling yourself into sinning and others to sin with you.
God does look at intention but sin is sin whether you meant to sin or not. It’s not an excuse. When you do something God hates, it’s sin. Whether you stole because you wanted to or whether you stole because you can’t afford to feed yourself, it’s sin. God does not excuse sin no matter what it is. Especially when it comes to sex. There is no overlooking sin with God. If you want to have premarital sex just say that lol, but don’t twist God’s word in your heart and find some way to make it right...you will make a habit of fooling yourself into sinning and others to sin with you.
It's possible that sin may be about more than just intentions and / or actions. There may also be an aspect of sin that has to do with an incorrect mindset as to how everything works.
Two things come to mind. One is getting back to the original topic of this thread which was that it's almost certain that a couple that's going to marry will want to have sex with each other before the actual wedding day, so how do you know if the first stirrings in that direction you feel toward a person are the right thing or an evil lustful thing (or even when one becomes the other). But just because the desire is right doesn't mean that it's the right time to fulfil that desire and reasons for that are going to be much deeper than just because God said so (whether we can understand those reasons or see how significant things we don't necessarily consider significant are is a different conversation, this is just to get us thinking that there is more to the concept of sin than just what we do).
I'm reminded of the scene in "The Kite Runner" (it's an intense but redemptive movie set in Afghanistan around the time of the Taliban takeover) where the rich kid who's family emigrated away comes back to Afghanistan to find the son of his childhood playmate who's family were servants in his home and were left behind in Afghanistan. He tracks him to the home of a man who has taken in a bunch of homeless children and learns that the soldiers came and demanded to buy that boy and the man sold him. He's furious and the man is infuriated by his fury and retorts something along the lines of " Look, there's nothing I can do to stop the soldiers from taking any of the children they take a fancy to. I'm not exploiting these kids for profit, but by co-operating enough to sell the ones I can't keep anyway, I get some money to buy food for and take care of the rest from all the other dangers out there even if I can't protect them from this one. Don't walk in here with your morality formed in a safe and easy place and condemn me."
Sin is real, but I think making sin exclusively about committing actions on a specified list, reduces the complexities of life and the love of God down to a checklist and often blocks grace from the people who need it most.
Two things come to mind. One is getting back to the original topic of this thread which was that it's almost certain that a couple that's going to marry will want to have sex with each other before the actual wedding day, so how do you know if the first stirrings in that direction you feel toward a person are the right thing or an evil lustful thing (or even when one becomes the other). But just because the desire is right doesn't mean that it's the right time to fulfil that desire and reasons for that are going to be much deeper than just because God said so (whether we can understand those reasons or see how significant things we don't necessarily consider significant are is a different conversation, this is just to get us thinking that there is more to the concept of sin than just what we do).
I'm reminded of the scene in "The Kite Runner" (it's an intense but redemptive movie set in Afghanistan around the time of the Taliban takeover) where the rich kid who's family emigrated away comes back to Afghanistan to find the son of his childhood playmate who's family were servants in his home and were left behind in Afghanistan. He tracks him to the home of a man who has taken in a bunch of homeless children and learns that the soldiers came and demanded to buy that boy and the man sold him. He's furious and the man is infuriated by his fury and retorts something along the lines of " Look, there's nothing I can do to stop the soldiers from taking any of the children they take a fancy to. I'm not exploiting these kids for profit, but by co-operating enough to sell the ones I can't keep anyway, I get some money to buy food for and take care of the rest from all the other dangers out there even if I can't protect them from this one. Don't walk in here with your morality formed in a safe and easy place and condemn me."
Sin is real, but I think making sin exclusively about committing actions on a specified list, reduces the complexities of life and the love of God down to a checklist and often blocks grace from the people who need it most.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
hmm never seen the Kite Runner
I think if you engaged to marry someone and you er, consummate before the big day, then you dont need to go on honeymoon. You already had it. early. and if you got preggers early, well, you just lose out on all the time you could have spent getting to know your fiance, and you'll probably experience more financial hardship. Also your child wont really have the benefit of firstborn blessing cos technically, they were illegitimate.
I mean you can be forgiven for this sin, but sin is usually about missing the mark and not getting things right, You can say you sort of got it right, but didnt really. God knows we can never get it right without Him
I think if you engaged to marry someone and you er, consummate before the big day, then you dont need to go on honeymoon. You already had it. early. and if you got preggers early, well, you just lose out on all the time you could have spent getting to know your fiance, and you'll probably experience more financial hardship. Also your child wont really have the benefit of firstborn blessing cos technically, they were illegitimate.
I mean you can be forgiven for this sin, but sin is usually about missing the mark and not getting things right, You can say you sort of got it right, but didnt really. God knows we can never get it right without Him