ROBERT@kontu.utu.fi (Robert W. Johnson) (04/29/91)
On one of these e-mail forums I belong to was a bunch of articles on masturbation. I forget which one, but I think that this topic is worthy of examining by everyone anyway, since it is a sin that so easily besets us. By a quick scan of "seed" in the OT (Lev. 15:16; 15;32; Lev. 18:21-23; Lev. 20:2; Lev. 22:4) it is obvious that wet dreams, and most probably masturbation, are an unclean act. The person involved in these things was unclean for at least a day, and had to stay away from the Holy things. It is clear that these things are unholy in the sight of God. Looking at the Neew Testament, we can be even clearer. Anybody that has eve been involved in these things knows that the lust of the flesh is involved, and that usually one visualizes some woman (in the case of a man) or some man (in the case of a woman) when committing these sins. Matt. 5:28 is real clear on the matter: but i say unto you, That whosoeve looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath comitted adultry with her already in his heart. What could be more clear? The flesh is strong, and I know that for a healthy unmarried man or woman (especially men) that this is a very hard burden to bear. As a young Christian seeking God with all my heart this sin would occassionally get me. Thank God we have the blood of Christ that we can claim over all sin and with repentance we are forgiven. this brings up another question. I know that when I am walking down the street or even watching televsion commercials that my eye is immediately drawn to those gorgious looking women. Is this sin? Someone once asked Watchman nee the same question, since by nature we do this. His answer was: The first look is not sin, it is the second look that is sin. I have been around so many men in my 43 years (being a man), and it seems that most everybody I meet just cannot take their eyes off of women. Matt 5:28 is real clear on the matter, this is absolutely an abomination to God. I know from personal experience that it is entirely possible to keep Matt. 5:28. After i got married, I determined tht i would not even look at another women. I did this more to honor my wife than to keep Matt. 5.28 (I don't think I was even aware of Matt. 5:28 at the time). If you practice "walKing in the Spirit," so can you, and thus honor God. ----- Robert W. Johnson Computer center, The University of Turku, Turku Finland robert@kontu.utu.fi (InterNet) robert@firien.bitnet (BITNET) The preceeding is my opinion and may not express the opinion of my employer and furthermore has nothing to do with my employment. [Do your references contain a typo? I see some of the ones from Lev, but 18:21-23 and 20:2 don't seem right. 18:21-23 talks about human sacrifice, homosexuality, and sexual relations with animals. 20:2 talks about human sacrifice (at least I assume that's what the reference means). --clh]
yount@fox.ece.cmu.edu (Charles Robert Yount) (05/02/91)
In article <Apr.28.19.41.56.1991.21164@athos.rutgers.edu> ROBERT@kontu.utu.fi (Robert W. Johnson) writes:
On one of these e-mail forums I belong to was a bunch of articles on
masturbation. I forget which one, but I think that this topic is worthy
of examining by everyone anyway, since it is a sin that so easily besets us.
By a quick scan of "seed" in the OT (Lev. 15:16; 15;32; Lev. 18:21-23;
Lev. 20:2; Lev. 22:4) it is obvious that wet dreams, and most probably
masturbation, are an unclean act. The person involved in these things
was unclean for at least a day, and had to stay away from the Holy things.
It is clear that these things are unholy in the sight of God.
I don't think the implication that an unclean state is equivalent to a
sinful act is completely accurate. For example, a woman during her
period was considered "unclean," but I certainly don't think this
implies she was guilty of an uncotrollable sin for a week each month.
--Chuck
[My impression of the passages Robert cited from Lev. is that they
were primarily talking about involuntary actions, and so described a
situation that was not exactly sin in the sense we think of it. On
the other hand, it does seem that people were expected to avoid
getting into an unclean state where possible. I'd be inclined to
infer that masturbation would be viewed by those who put together lev.
as at least undersirable. --clh]tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/02/91)
In article <Apr.28.19.41.56.1991.21164@athos.rutgers.edu> ROBERT@kontu.utu.fi (Robert W. Johnson) writes: >On one of these e-mail forums I belong to was a bunch of articles on >masturbation. I forget which one, but I think that this topic is worthy >of examining by everyone anyway, since it is a sin that so easily besets us. >By a quick scan of "seed" in the OT (Lev. 15:16; 15;32; Lev. 18:21-23; >Lev. 20:2; Lev. 22:4) it is obvious that wet dreams, and most probably >masturbation, are an unclean act. The person involved in these things >was unclean for at least a day, and had to stay away from the Holy things. >It is clear that these things are unholy in the sight of God. A couple engaged in "normal" intercourse is also considered unclean, (both of them), does this mean that normal intercourse is not approved of by God? (Both of them are also called upon to bathe immediately after the act, but they remain unclean until evening.) It would appear that the laws of the Israelites are quite wary of discharges of fluid from the body. Blood, Semen, Menstrual Flows, all of these are unclean. Persons with skin diseases are unclean, and are to be sent outside the camps. Many of the laws seem to be matters of good health practices, (to prevent the spread of infectious diseases). (My opinion of course as always.) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
ac3p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison R. Carter) (05/03/91)
ROBERT@kontu.utu.fi (Robert W. Johnson) writes: >Looking at the Neew Testament, we can be even clearer. Anybody that >has >eve been involved in these things knows that the lust of the flesh is >involved, and that usually one visualizes some woman (in the case of a >man) >or some man (in the case of a woman) when committing these sins. Is it really a sin, or a genuine biological need to release the genetic material within one's testicles? It is impossible to stop sperm buildup and glucose buildup within the prostate. Release must happen sometime, or else your genitals start to ache and the "sin" must inevitably happen...due to the inordinate amount of testosterone and fluid that build up due to the chastity belt of spirituality. >What could be more clear? The flesh is strong, and I know that for a >healthy unmarried man or woman (especially men) that this is a very hard >burden to bear. As a young Christian seeking God with all my heart this >sin would occassionally get me. Thank God we have the blood of Christ >that >we can claim over all sin and with repentance we are forgiven. The flesh is strong because we have evolved as flesh for the past four billion years. We've only been sentient spirits for the past million or so. >I know from personal experience that it is entirely possible to keep Matt. >5:28. After i got married, I determined tht i would not even look at >another women. I did this more to honor my wife than to keep Matt. 5.28 >(I don't think I was even aware of Matt. 5:28 at the time). If you >practice "walKing in the Spirit," so can you, and thus honor God. It's possible now because you have an actual outlet for the flesh, a woman you can look at lustfully because it's allowed by marriage. If the spirit and the flesh are synonyms for good and evil, then why are you "walking in the spirit" and married at the same time? >but i say unto you, That whosoeve looketh upon a woman to lust after her >hath comitted adultry with her already in his heart. All sex is lust. Sex is an activity of the flesh, and the flesh is evil. Having sex with your wife is an activity of the flesh. The statement above says "woman", not "any woman except your wife." Does this mean that lust for, and sex with, your wife is less than human, and definitely not a spiritual thing? I seem to find a lot of head-aching contradictions over this in the bible. First Adam and Eve are supposed to be one flesh, FLESH, mind you, then masturbation is supposed to be a sin in Leviticus, then Christ says lust for a woman is sin, and then Paul goes on to say later that it's better for men never to marry. What is this? It seems that the only way one can actually keep from taking part in any of these sins is to be castrated. But then, in Leviticus, no man without testicles can go into the holy places, because he is then less than a complete human. Please, I'm confused!!!!! ---------------- A. Carter The Darwin's advocate [It's hard to be clear what things you are seriously asserting here. The concept that the body is evil is considered by almost all Christians to be a heresy. When Paul contrasts spirit and "flesh" it seems pretty clear he's using "flesh" somewhat metaphorically. See particularly Eph 5:22, where marriage is seen as a model of the relationship with Christ and the church. I'm going to assume you are not serious when you identify lust with all sex. If you are, we need a discussion abuot what chastity means to Christians... --clh]
James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (05/05/91)
Our moderator poses: |> --Chuck |> |> [My impression of the passages Robert cited from Lev. is that they |> were primarily talking about involuntary actions, and so described a |> situation that was not exactly sin in the sense we think of it. On |> the other hand, it does seem that people were expected to avoid |> getting into an unclean state where possible. I'd be inclined to |> infer that masturbation would be viewed by those who put together lev. |> as at least undersirable. --clh] Does this mean that in this day and age, where patriachal power systems are being questioned that we must agree with these people who say that masturbation is 'undesirable' ? The reason for much of the 'uncleanliness' laws with regard to sexuality is geared for the patrilineal system to keep men in power ! - I am trying to prepare a posting on this and related matters, so this is just really a 'tithe' of what I want to say ! Look for my posting (when I finally get it finished) later (if you're interested :-) I know the "Hite Report" (by Shere Hite) has some interesting observations to make on the subject and gives futher references... Jim [I'm sorry if I left the impression that I was condemning masturbation. When writing as moderator, I am typically not proposing specific viewpoints, so much as trying to point out where there are additional things that you might want to take into account. That was true here. I was simply trying to criticize what I saw as an over-simplified presentation of the meaning of Lev, while suggesting a more indirect way that one could still try to make use of Lev. Clearly there are things other than the Lev. holiness code that a Christian needs to consider, which may lead to a different conclusion. --clh]
mazz@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Richard Mazzaferri) (05/07/91)
Two points in relation to this topic. Robert Johnson in his original article
stated that wet dreams ( along with masturbation ) were unclean ( according to
Lev., I think ) and therefore unholy. What exactly he means by unholy is not
known to me, but I have a problem with his viewpoint. I am under the
impression ( someone with medical knowledge please correct me if I am wrong )
that wet dreams occur naturally if semen is not released in some other fashion.
This means that chaste men who do not masturbate, will still become unclean and
therefore unholy. It seems that if you do not masturbate, your body does
something fairly similar for you. Either way, if unclean-ness is to be
interpreted as unholiness or even sin, I cannot avoid it, just as women who
menstuate cannot avoid it. What I am concerned about is the attitude that i
perceive that these laws of uncleanliness seem to be equated with sin, or at
least unholiness, when people cannot avoid violating them. I do not see wet
dreams as sinful, or even undesirable, bat rather a biological necessity.
Masturbation is a grayer area, but I still don't see it of itself as being
inherently sinful, but it is open to abuse.
Secondly, I have heard other interpretations of the passage quoted, saying
that looking at a women in lust is equivalent to adultery with that women.
I have no knowledge of Greek or Aramaic nor do I possess extensive knowledge
of Jewish culture, but this passage has been explained to me in the following
manner - what Jesus meant by looking at a women in lust was in effect plotting
how to commit adultery with her, ie the intent to commit adultery is equivalent
to the act itself, which is a slightly different interpretation than Robert's.
Anyone else know more on this? Again, this leads me to a different viewpoint
than Robert, who will not look at other women. I don't see that as inherently
sinful either, but just as for masturbation, the possibility for abuse is
there.
Mazz.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Mazzaferri Ph.D. student Uni. of Newcastle
Ph (049) 602574 mazz@nucs.newcastle.edu.au Australia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/11/91)
In article <May.7.00.46.01.1991.14946@athos.rutgers.edu> mazz@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Richard Mazzaferri) writes: > Secondly, I have heard other interpretations of the passage quoted, saying >that looking at a women in lust is equivalent to adultery with that women. >I have no knowledge of Greek or Aramaic nor do I possess extensive knowledge >of Jewish culture, but this passage has been explained to me in the following >manner - what Jesus meant by looking at a women in lust was in effect plotting >how to commit adultery with her, ie the intent to commit adultery is equivalent >to the act itself, which is a slightly different interpretation than Robert's. >Anyone else know more on this? Again, this leads me to a different viewpoint >than Robert, who will not look at other women. I don't see that as inherently >sinful either, but just as for masturbation, the possibility for abuse is >there. It is also interesting to note that the very same word for lust is also translated covet. The command not to covet or desire a neighbor's wife can be found in the ten commandments. Jesus explained that if a man looks on a woman with lust or desire, he is commiting adultery in with her in his heart. In the text of Matthew, Jesus' teaching on calling others names like "raca" (empty one) or "fool." I suppose we could assume that if a person hates his brother, he is commiting murder in his heart. And especially, if coveting another man's wife is like adultery, then we could assume that coveting an object is like commiting a theft. Link Hudson a student at the University of Georgia.
mcorbin@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Michael Corbin) (05/19/91)
I am under the impression that the act of having the wet dream is not to be construed as commiting a sin, but that the discharge was considered unclean. The Jewish law prescribed the procedure for rectifying this, and following the procedure reinstated the status of that person. Mike