masturbation.

Akrasia

Is it against god? If so, why?

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

Is it against god? If so, why?

I don't think it is condemned in Scripture. Of course lustful thoughts are condemned, but maybe it's possible to indulge in the practice while focusing your thoughts solely on calculating the square root of a large number.....

Bisar

PDN wrote: »

I don't think it is condemned in Scripture.

What is your interpretation of the story of Onan? Was is sin in "spilling his seed" or in not impregnating his brother's wife?

PDN

Bisar wrote: »

What is your interpretation of the story of Onan? Was is sin in "spilling his seed" or in not impregnating his brother's wife?

I think it is fairly plain that not impregnating the wife, thereby evading his fraternal responsibilities, was the issue.

Of course what Onan did was actually coitus interruptus, rather than masturbation.

Bisar

PDN wrote: »

I think it is fairly plain that not impregnating the wife, thereby evading his fraternal responsibilities, was the issue.

Of course what Onan did was actually coitus interruptus, rather than masturbation.

Agreed, but my point was that if one interprets Onan's sin as being the spilling of his seed (the RC interpretation ? ) then one would have to conclude that masturbation is also sinful.

Slightly aside, is Onan the sole scriptural justification for the ban on contraception/birth control in some Christian churches?

philologos

The scriptural basis lies in Matthew 5:28.

However you should check out sites of ministries dealing with the topic to find out more. Particularly XXXChurch.com which helps Christians with addiction.

cantalach

PDN wrote: »

Of course what Onan did was actually coitus interruptus, rather than masturbation.

My wife and I started going out when we were college students in the late 80s. Condoms were very difficult to get hold of in those days so we took to using coitus interruptus to avoid complications. My wife shared a flat with a girl named Cáit and for many weeks, my wife (who has always been hard of hearing) thought that our method of contraception was known as "Cáit will interrupt us."

philologos

Bisar wrote: »

Agreed, but my point was that if one interprets Onan's sin as being the spilling of his seed (the RC interpretation ? ) then one would have to conclude that masturbation is also sinful.

Slightly aside, is Onan the sole scriptural justification for the ban on contraception/birth control in some Christian churches?

Onan was sinning as he failed to do his ancestral duty. If your brother dies before bearing a son, in Hebrew culture you would have to get his wife a son afterwards and keep it in the deceased's name. Therefore by pulling out, he was refusing to follow what God had commanded.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Onan was sinning as he failed to do his ancestral duty. If your brother dies before bearing a son, in Hebrew culture you would have to get his wife a son afterwards and keep it in the deceased's name. Therefore by pulling out, he was refusing to follow what God had commanded.

I wonder what would have happened if Onan had just point blank said, "Sorry, but I don't want to do this."

Instead it appears that he was happy enough to have sexual relations with the woman, yet petulantly avoided conceiving a child because the child would bear his brother's name rather than his own.

Tigger

as christians don'y you think that the old testament is what Christ rebelled against and that hebrew laws such as having to impregnate your sister in law don't really apply
in the new testement it saws nothing against sexual acts and i feel that being a christian should be based on Jesus' teachings rather than on the hebrew rules with a lords prayer tacked on

PDN

Tigger wrote: »

as christians don'y you think that the old testament is what Christ rebelled against and that hebrew laws such as having to impregnate your sister in law don't really apply
in the new testement it saws nothing against sexual acts and i feel that being a christian should be based on Jesus' teachings rather than on the hebrew rules with a lords prayer tacked on

Well, I don't think it was a law at all. Neither is anyone here suggesting that such customs or laws should apply today.

BTW, your statement about the New Testament saying nothing against sexual acts is quite untrue. For example, the New Testament specifically condemns adultery.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (1 Corinthians 6:9)

And, no, I do not think that Christ rebelled against the Old Testament.

Tigger

PDN wrote: »

Well, I don't think it was a law at all. Neither is anyone here suggesting that such customs or laws should apply today.

BTW, your statement about the New Testament saying nothing against sexual acts is quite untrue. For example, the New Testament specifically condemns adultery.


And, no, I do not think that Christ rebelled against the Old Testament.

adultery as defined as fornication outside marraige or adultery as married persons straying thats always been my query

and iof you believe that the old testemant is the will of God rather than a mixture of Gods message interspersed with the Hebrew rulers wishes i draw you to this skit which i'm sure you have seen before but highlights my belief that Christ rebelled against the OT

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

PDN

Sigh, we've had this nonsense here before.

The 'skit' you copied is a letter addressed to a Jewish media personality and is based on the statement that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in Leviticus.

This is the Christianity forum, not the Jewish forum, so I'm not quite sure what you think its relevance is here. It certainly does not address the issue of Jesus at all, let alone the notion that He rebelled against the Old Testament. Also, no-one around here has formed their view of homosexuality on the basis of a verse in Leviticus.

Christian belief about the Old Testament, based on the teachings of Jesus and other New Testament writers, is as follows:
1. The Old Testament is the Word of God.
2. Much of the Old Testament looked forward to the coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore many of the Old Testament ceremonies and laws are fulfilled and no longer apply to Christians today.
3. The Old Testament is to be interpreted and understood in the light of the New Testament.
4. Jesus specifically said that He did not come to destroy the Old Testament but rather to fulfill it.

Tigger

PDN wrote: »

Sigh, we've had this nonsense here before.

how is it nonsense thats patronising and unnessiciary i admitted it was a skit i was using it as wn example of the tripe that christians have left out of the OT laws

The 'skit' you copied is a letter addressed to a Jewish media personality and is based on the statement that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in Leviticus.

i know that i posted it the hebrews ndon't believe that the messiah came so still believe that the OT s valid
Jeses although he validated SOME of the OT rebelled against many practices in hebrew life

This is the Christianity forum, not the Jewish forum, so I'm not quite sure what you think its relevance is here. It certainly does not address the issue of Jesus at all, let alone the notion that He rebelled against the Old Testament. Also, no-one around here has formed their view of homosexuality on the basis of a verse in Leviticus.

no but the view on mastrabation was backed up by the story of Onan

Christian belief about the Old Testament, based on the teachings of Jesus and other New Testament writers, is as follows:
1. The Old Testament is the Word of God.
2. Much of the Old Testament looked forward to the coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore many of the Old Testament ceremonies and laws are fulfilled and no longer apply to Christians today.
3. The Old Testament is to be interpreted and understood in the light of the New Testament.
4. Jesus specifically said that He did not come to destroy the Old Testament but rather to fulfill it.

i agree
but there are parts of the old testemant that make no sense so where in the new does it mention any issue with mastrubation

in fact the interpertation of mastrubation as adultery and the follow on that it is a mortal sin is Roman Catholic dogma and not biblicial at all

hence my first question do you believe that sex outside marraige of to unnattached persons is adultery

also
Matthew 5:28 says that even thinking about a woman in a lustful way is adultery and if adultery is a mortal sin ad cuts one off from God then dosen';t that seem like a huge issue
tell me you don't have lustfull thoughts
thoughts being controlled seems rather extreem

Popinjay

Tigger wrote: »

as christians don'y you think that the old testament is what Christ rebelled against

Matthew 5:17-20
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

See above tbh. Doesn't seem to rebel against a word of it. Looks more to me like an open message of support. I don't know if that merits another thread. I'm kinda busy at the mo' so if I started it I'd only be accused of abandonment at some point. If anyone else wants to I'd be interested anyway.

santing

The Lord Jesus did indeed not abolish the Law but fullfil it. The Law (and OT) does not apply anymore because when we become Christians we receive a new life, and at the same time, our old life dies:

Rom 7:1-4 ESV Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God."

The reference to Onan was made because it is the only example anywhere in the Bible of this kind.

Masturbation is not adultery per se, but the question must be asked, what a person is thinking about while masturbating. If he is indeed solving mathematically equations there doesn't seem to be much against it. However, ...

Tigger

santing wrote: »

The Lord Jesus did indeed not abolish the Law but fullfil it. The Law (and OT) does not apply anymore because when we become Christians we receive a new life, and at the same time, our old life dies:

Rom 7:1-4 ESV Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God."

The reference to Onan was made because it is the only example anywhere in the Bible of this kind.

Masturbation is not adultery per se, but the question must be asked, what a person is thinking about while masturbating. If he is indeed solving mathematically equations there doesn't seem to be much against it. However, ...

but if you are not married then it seems that its not adultery#
and if you are married and you think of you wife its not adultery?

Tomk1

oo the square root of 2, ooo the square root of 2, oooo the square root of 2, PYT (lost concentration), I'm going to hell :pac:

Dog Fan

I'm never going to look at a mathematician straight again.

Joe1919

Its worth noting that up to a few hundred years ago, it was thought that semen was the seed and contained the whole of life. (The women was compared to the soil in which the man planted his seed.)

However, today, it is thought that semen is more like pollen rather than seed, as semen contains only half the DNA and is therefore not life (as such) and does not even contain potential life, as it can never become actualised until it fuses with a female egg.

AtomicHorror

Joe1919 wrote: »

However, today, it is known that semen is more like pollen rather than seed, as semen contains only half the DNA and is therefore not life (as such) and does not even contain potential life, as it can never become actualised until it fuses with a female egg.

Fixed.

wolfsbane

Tigger wrote: »

but if you are not married then it seems that its not adultery#
and if you are married and you think of you wife its not adultery?

Adultery means at least one married person is involved a sexual relationship outside marriage. Fornication covers it when both parties are single.

Masturbating to images of one's wife would not be a sin.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Adultery means at least one married person is involved a sexual relationship outside marriage.

Nope. Biblical "adultery" occurs only when a married woman has sex with a man who is not her husband. The modern equal-rights understanding that the married party can be male or female (and presumably the other party is of the opposite sex) is a clearly unbiblical teaching.

Bubs101

I thought that Onan's sin could also be interpreted as disobeying a direct order from God and having little to do with the spilling of the seed?

philologos

Bubs101, read up and that is exactly what PDN and I have suggested.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Adultery means at least one married person is involved a sexual relationship outside marriage.
Nope. Biblical "adultery" occurs only when a married woman has sex with a man who is not her husband. The modern equal-rights understanding that the married party can be male or female (and presumably the other party is of the opposite sex) is a clearly unbiblical teaching.

Jesus Christ said:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=27&end_verse=29&version=50&context=context

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote: »

robindch said:


Jesus Christ said:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=27&end_verse=29&version=50&context=context

That doesn't give us much of a chance does it?

When we are 'courting' we choose our partners based on who we are attracted to, and attraction implies at least some measure of lust.

I have a feeling that one reason for monastic life was to protect the holy men and women from the temptation of having lustful thoughts.

Of course, monastic life can not possibly become universally adopted because it would mean the end of the human race

kelly1

Akrasia wrote: »

Is it against god? If so, why?

Hello Akrasia, here's what the catechism has to say about it:

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

Joe1919

I personally suspect that the reason why masturbation was frowned upon by the ancients was that they were trying to encourage people to 'go forth and multiply'. Men and women were expected to marry and have children.
I suppose this is understandable in the context of the plagues and famines and hardships people had to endure, (which probably hindered the expansion of the race), along with the necessity of having a fit young population to fight wars and keep the elites in their position at the top of the hierarchy.

ryoishin

When I was studying theology a big part of any moral issue was your own dissernment along with an obligation to listen to the teachings of the Church.

What do yuo think OP, I have no problem with it, its part of self exploration etc and to some degree it could be seen as exercise, helping to keep you in woirking order, controling urges etc.

Ive heard of it used in the treatment of pedaphila (sp, can some one fix).

In realtion to thinking about maths, those sexy figures!

Alot of the adultry talk in Scripture also realtes to Israel turning her back on God etc.

AtomicHorror

Joe1919 wrote: »

I personally suspect that the reason why masturbation was frowned upon by the ancients was that they were trying to encourage people to 'go forth and multiply'. Men and women were expected to marry and have children.
I suppose this is understandable in the context of the plagues and famines and hardships people had to endure, (which probably hindered the expansion of the race), along with the necessity of having a fit young population to fight wars and keep the elites in their position at the top of the hierarchy.

Masturbation embarrasses people and has done for a very long time. I would speculate that the social stigma originated as something similar to vehement homophobia- a means of hiding one's own actual behavior or desires. The layers of reasoning and moralising heaped on top of that mask a very simplistic core motive. Nobody wants to be labeled as a wanker.

wolfsbane

Akrasia said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Jesus Christ said:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...ontext=context
That doesn't give us much of a chance does it?

When we are 'courting' we choose our partners based on who we are attracted to, and attraction implies at least some measure of lust.

It implies sexual attraction, but not lust. Lust would be allowing the feling of attraction to go on to imagining experiencing a sexual relationship with the person.

I have a feeling that one reason for monastic life was to protect the holy men and women from the temptation of having lustful thoughts.

Indeed. Which only shows how foolish they were, thinking that lust can be so extinguished. It only diverts it to more unnatural forms. Marriage is the Biblical way to cope with sexual needs.

Pompey Magnus

wolfsbane wrote: »

Marriage is the Biblical way to cope with sexual needs.

So when Jesus told his apostles to leave their wives and follow him what outlet for their sexual needs did he allow?

Maybe there was a very practical reason for why prostitutes followed this group of unattached men around?

wolfsbane

Depeche_Mode said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Marriage is the Biblical way to cope with sexual needs.
So when Jesus told his apostles to leave their wives and follow him what outlet for their sexual needs did he allow?

He never told them to do that - and they never did it. Paul defends his right to have a wife, even though he voluntarily did not take it up. He reveals many of the apostles had wives who accompanied them:
1 Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? [emphasis mine].

Maybe there was a very practical reason for why prostitutes followed this group of unattached men around?

Any prostitutes were former ones. Just as with true Christians at all times:
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. [emphasis mine].

Pompey Magnus

wolfsbane wrote: »

Depeche_Mode said:

He never told them to do that - and they never did it. Paul defends his right to have a wife, even though he voluntarily did not take it up. He reveals many of the apostles had wives who accompanied them:

Oh, so when Peter said: "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" he wasn't being entirely true, they didn't leave absolutely everything? Did the apostles leave everything or not?

Or when Luke 5:11 says that as soon as Peter, James and John arrived on shore after Jesus calls them "they forsook all and followed Him" did Luke really mean to say that actually the three first went home and collected their wives and children and then forsook everything else?

Any prostitutes were former ones. Just as with true Christians at all times:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

I don't see Jesus specifying former prostitutes there. He seems to be referring to women still in the game.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Oh, so when Peter said: "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" he wasn't being entirely true, they didn't leave absolutely everything? Did the apostles leave everything or not?

Or when Luke 5:11 says that as soon as Peter, James and John arrived on shore after Jesus calls them "they forsook all and followed Him" did Luke really mean to say that actually the three first went home and collected their wives and children and then forsook everything else?

And they didn't cut their fingers off and leave them behind either. Half-hearted hypocrites! :rolleyes:

I do believe the silliness on this board is increasing.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Akrasia said:

It implies sexual attraction, but not lust. Lust would be allowing the feling of attraction to go on to imagining experiencing a sexual relationship with the person.

What??

What do you think sexual attraction is if it isn't "imagining experiencing a sexual relationship with the person"

I'm agreeing with PDN, this is reaching a new level of silliness.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

And they didn't cut their fingers off and leave them behind either. Half-hearted hypocrites! :rolleyes:

I do believe the silliness on this board is increasing.

It might be obvious to you that the Gospels didn't include wives among the things that the apostles left behind, but the largest Christian denomination does teach that wives too were left behind and the apostles abandoned literally everything to follow Jesus so perhaps it isn't as clear cut as you imagine it to be.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It might be obvious to you that the Gospels didn't include wives among the things that the apostles left behind, but the largest Christian denomination does teach that wives too were left behind and the apostles abandoned literally everything to follow Jesus so perhaps it isn't as clear cut as you imagine it to be.

Seems perfectly clear cut to me.

When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. (Matthew 8:14-15)

Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5)

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. (Matthew 8:14-15)

Good point. I assumed when the apostles went to follow Jesus they gave up everything; home, possessions and family. Obviously they really kept what they owned. I have to say I found Luke's statement about Peter, James and John leaving everything behind quite misleading, Matthew clears it up though.

However it does leave me wondering why in the Gospel of Mark Jesus demanded the rich man to "go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." Yet as you quite rightly point out he didn't make the same demand of Peter.

I find it odd that according to Matthew Jesus allows Peter keep his house but in Mark Jesus demands that to follow him the rich man must sell his. Double standards?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Good point. I assumed when the apostles went to follow Jesus they gave up everything; home, possessions and family. Obviously they really kept what they owned. I have to say I found Luke's statement about Peter, James and John leaving everything behind quite misleading, Matthew clears it up though.

However it does leave me wondering why in the Gospel of Mark Jesus demanded the rich man to "go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." Yet as you quite rightly point out he didn't make the same demand of Peter.

I find it odd that according to Matthew Jesus allows Peter keep his house but in Mark Jesus demands that to follow him the rich man must sell his. Double standards?

Presumably the young man did not have a wife and family. If Jesus had encouraged Peter to sell his house, desert his wife, and abandon any children then I don't think I would ever have become a follower of such a person.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Presumably the young man did not have a wife and family.

Well that is an assumption as it says nothing about him being single in the passage, and as it was in a period when people generally married very young the assumption should be that he was married.

If Jesus had encouraged Peter to sell his house, desert his wife, and abandon any children then I don't think I would ever have become a follower of such a person.

Obviously you didn't have a problem with him preventing one of the twelve going home to bury his recently deceased father then, "Let the dead bury the dead"? I wonder if there was a grieving widow who lost her husband and her son on that day?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well that is an assumption as it says nothing about him being single in the passage, and as it was in a period when people generally married very young the assumption should be that he was married.

Yes, no single people in Palestine in those days, were there? :rolleyes:

Obviously you didn't have a problem with him preventing one of the twelve going home to bury his recently deceased father then, "Let the dead bury the dead"? I wonder if there was a grieving widow who lost her husband and her son on that day?

Well it wasn't one of the twelve, but I think I see what you're driving at. If the guy's father had indeed died I wouldn't see any great problem. I'm much more interested in the living than the dead.

I don't see any reference to a grieving widow in the biblical text, but since you're in the mood for inventing wives tonight why not invent one more?

However, it is entirely possible that the father was still alive. The way I have often heard this passage explained is that the guy was saying, "Once my father is dead and gone, then I'll come and be your disciple." Christ's response was a way of saying, "Don't bother."

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Presumably the young man did not have a wife and family. If Jesus had encouraged Peter to sell his house, desert his wife, and abandon any children then I don't think I would ever have become a follower of such a person.

Jesus does encourage Peter to sell his home, desert his wife and abandon his children.

Matthew 19
27 Then Peter said to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?"
28 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.
30"But many who are first will be last; and the last, first.

Biblegateway mentions that "wife" was included in some early manuscripts of that passage. Removed later on?

Anyway, as BibleBB.com comments on this passage

Christ is acknowledging that when you came to Him, you might have had to turn your back on a relationship. Becoming a Christian may alienate you from your spouse. It probably won't cause a divorce, but there is still a recognizable division. Perhaps you were alienated from your parents, or brothers and sisters. Maybe you were kicked out of your family when you came to Christ and lost an inheritance. There was a price to pay, but no one has forsaken anything for Christ's sake that he won't get back a hundredfold. When you gave up your family, you inherited all those in the body of Christ: you have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, husbands, wives, houses, and lands worldwide. You are embraced by a fellowship of those who love the Lord Jesus Christ.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If Jesus had encouraged Peter to sell his house, desert his wife, and abandon any children then I don't think I would ever have become a follower of such a person.

Reading from our old friend Matthew 10:33-38, Jesus is quite clear that he wants to be number one in any relationship and he cares not one whit -- in fact, he seems quite happy -- that this will turn families into civil war zones.

Matthew wrote:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;"

We look forward to hearing of your deconversion!

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Yes, no single people in Palestine in those days, were there? :rolleyes:

Well now, there certainly were single people in Palestine in those days however we know that it was not the norm for a man who was of an age to own property to be single. As the text does not tell us his marital status your assumption that he was single is not justified as the chances are that he was married. Perhaps instead of saying "Presumably the young man did not have a wife and family" you should have said "I hope the young man did not have a wife and family".

I don't see any reference to a grieving widow in the biblical text, but since you're in the mood for inventing wives tonight why not invent one more?

You are right, I'm not sure if there was a widow, but here is where an assumption is justified. Women have a longer life span than men, one can assume that the apostles mother was still alive. This is the difference between my assumption and yours. My assumption that the young man was married comes from our understanding of marriage practices in 1st Century Judaism. My assumption that the mother was still alive comes from our knowledge that for numerous reasons males tend to die younger than females. I could be quite easily wrong on both counts but, based on the incomplete evidence provided in the Gospels, I would say that my assumptions are the more justifiable.

Also, it is not a big deal for me if my assumption is wrong, but it seems your entire faith in Jesus rest on your assumption to be correct, that Jesus didn't tell a married man with children to abandon it all to follow him.

However, it is entirely possible that the father was still alive. The way I have often heard this passage explained is that the guy was saying, "Once my father is dead and gone, then I'll come and be your disciple." Christ's response was a way of saying, "Don't bother."

If someone really interprets the passage that way then I think they are desperatly clutching at straws. Indeed even for someone to bother coming up with that shows that some Christians are not comfortable with what is quite clearly an instruction by Jesus to not go home to bury a dead father.

I mean just read the context of the passage, Christians love telling skeptics to do that, don't they? A large crowd had gathered around Jesus and he ordered his disciples to go with him to the other side of the lake. A disciple asks him "Sir, let me first go back and bury my father" and Jesus says no. The context of the passage only justifies an interpretation in which the father is now dead.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Reading from our old friend Matthew 10:33-38, Jesus is quite clear that he wants to be number one in any relationship and he cares not one whit -- in fact, he seems quite happy -- that this will turn families into civil war zones.We look forward to hearing of your deconversion!

You are in for a long wait then.

There is a world of difference between the following:

1. "If you follow me then be prepared for the fact that some of the people closest to you will turn away from you and treat you as an enemy."

2. "Abandon those to whom you have a responsibility to feed and clothe, namely your wife and children."

Once again we have atheists trying to force a totally unnatural meaning onto the biblical text. If option number two were indeed what Jesus was saying then He was directly contradicted by Paul who wrote:

If anyone does not take care of his own relatives, especially his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Timothy 5:8)

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Once again we have atheists trying to force a totally unnatural meaning onto the biblical text.

I don't think it is an unnatural meaning to the text. Jesus says "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother...". It his intention to do these things, he has come to actively turn people against their families. If he had said "My coming will turn a man against his father..." it would be a small change but there would be a big difference and then your interpretation would be justified, but this isn't what he said.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Once again we have atheists trying to force a totally unnatural meaning onto the biblical text.

As DM points out, it's you who is changing the entirely natural meaning. Jesus is quite clear that what he fully intends to do is to tear families apart (as an aside, I can certainly confirm that this is exactly what has happened in several familes that I know who converted to christianity and became virtually impossible to live with -- one of the few biblical prophesies which is entirely accurate).

But seriously, stretching the meaning of "I have come to turn..." until the phrase no longer means what it says is hardly in accordance with current biblical scholarship, let alone the kind of unsympathetic reading that you expect I'll provide

PDN wrote: »

If option number two were indeed what Jesus was saying then He was directly contradicted by Paul who wrote:

In which case one has a biblical contradiction on one's hands -- should one trust the accuracy of what Jesus is directly quoted as saying, or should one believe that Paul's comments are the better?

It's good to note in passing, though, that Paul has a higher opinion of people who do not believe what he says, than people who abandon their families. Usually and rather unhappily, it's the other way around in the bible.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You are in for a long wait then.

There is a world of difference between the following:

1. "If you follow me then be prepared for the fact that some of the people closest to you will turn away from you and treat you as an enemy."

2. "Abandon those to whom you have a responsibility to feed and clothe, namely your wife and children."

Once again we have atheists trying to force a totally unnatural meaning onto the biblical text.

You are right, there is a world of difference between the two.

So why are you claiming that number 2 actually means number 1.

Jesus tells people to either "leave" or "forsake" (depending on translation) family, wives, friends, who are not Christian followers themselves, and follow him instead. There is no mention of people turning away from the Christian, every time this is mentioned it is ALWAYS the Christian turning away from his family or friends who do not believe.

And in doing so you will get 100 times what you had before in heaven (so don't worry about it). There is little mention of how the family, wives, mothers, brothers are supposed to feel about this, but Jesus message is clear, to be saved you must follow him, that is the important thing, forsake all others.

He is saying that in response to Peter who has was basically asking we have given up everything for you, what do we get

Why do you even bother having a Bible at all PDN if you just manipulate the meaning of any passage you personally don't like?

PDN wrote: »

If option number two were indeed what Jesus was saying then He was directly contradicted by Paul who wrote:

You say that as if that is something that wouldn't happen?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

As DM points out, it's you who is changing the entirely natural meaning. Jesus is quite clear that what he fully intends to do is to tear families apart (as an aside, I can certainly confirm that this is exactly what has happened in several familes that I know who converted to christianity and became virtually impossible to live with -- one of the few biblical prophesies which is entirely accurate).

But seriously, stretching the meaning of "I have come to turn..." until the phrase no longer means what it says is hardly in accordance with current biblical scholarship, let alone the kind of unsympathetic reading that you expect I'll provide :)In which case one has a biblical contradiction on one's hands -- should one trust the accuracy of what Jesus is directly quoted as saying, or should one believe that Paul's comments are the better?

Current biblical scholarship (since you raised it) recognises that Jesus is quoting from Micah Chapter 7. That passage speaks about the conditions that will prevail when the Messiah comes. Jesus, coming as the Messiah, will indeed usher in such events - but that is a consequence not a purpose.

Incidentally, my friend is a builder who has been helping me finish off a few of the outstanding jobs on the house I recently built. Every time he arrives he announces, "I have come to mess up your house".

I always thought that he was warning my wife that the jobs he does will create a lot of dust and mess. Thank you for opening my eyes! Now I understand that the evil builder is coming to my house for the express purpose of making a mess.