Men's groups dealing with sexual morality/accountability (NSFW)

[Ħ]

I'm asking a question that assumes the existence of objective moral values. Why do you think it would matter to me whether or not they acted this way 500 years ago?

[rumborak]

It's kinda hard to argue for an objective moral standard for sexuality when modern Western swim wear would have been considered whore attire not too long ago. Or asking a guy out. Or asking him to park with you.

rumborak

[Ħ]

The bible we're reading today is basically the same bible that was read centuries ago.  I really don't care what culture has to say.  I can read, and I can do my best to not read modern culture into the text.  You say that that's exactly what they said they'd do back then.  Does that preclude me from making a decision for myself? No.

[rumborak]

Yeah, but a book is as much about the reader as it is about the writer. One is *always* projecting one's context into what one reads. How else do you explain the vastly different interpretations on sexuality over the millennia? You can not possibly be so vain to think that you are the first to arrive at the correct interpretation.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Yeah, but a book is as much about the reader as it is about the writer. One is *always* projecting one's context into what one reads. How else do you explain the vastly different interpretations on sexuality over the millennia? You can not possibly be so vain to think that you are the first to arrive at the correct interpretation.

rumborak

No, I'm not.  But I'm trying my best to not project my instilled values into the text.  I will, inevitably, but I can't just close the book and say that there's no hope in me ever knowing anything.

[rumborak]

That is a very extreme overreaction to the opposite. The simple realization that there are many "correct" ways to read the same thing would probably be more reasonable.

rumborak

[Ħ]

That is a very extreme overreaction to the opposite. The simple realization that there are many "correct" ways to read the same thing would probably be more reasonable.

rumborak

Well, I'd say that there is one correct way, and that we all have slightly blurred vision.

[yeshaberto]

That is a very extreme overreaction to the opposite. The simple realization that there are many "correct" ways to read the same thing would probably be more reasonable.

rumborak

Well, I'd say that there is one correct way, and that we all have slightly blurred vision.

Love that...holds truth in some many things

[hefdaddy42]

That is a very extreme overreaction to the opposite. The simple realization that there are many "correct" ways to read the same thing would probably be more reasonable.

rumborak

Well, I'd say that there is one correct way, and that we all have slightly blurred vision.

The logical outcome of this approach would be a lack of clarity on the part of the author.

[AndyDT]

If you can't do physical things in a Christian relationshp it's hard to see how you can be more than friends unless you tell the other person about your sexual feelings.

[yeshaberto]

That is a very extreme overreaction to the opposite. The simple realization that there are many "correct" ways to read the same thing would probably be more reasonable.

rumborak

Well, I'd say that there is one correct way, and that we all have slightly blurred vision.

The logical outcome of this approach would be a lack of clarity on the part of the author.

or that a part of the joy of the search is the journey looking for it

[hefdaddy42]

That is a very extreme overreaction to the opposite. The simple realization that there are many "correct" ways to read the same thing would probably be more reasonable.

rumborak

Well, I'd say that there is one correct way, and that we all have slightly blurred vision.

The logical outcome of this approach would be a lack of clarity on the part of the author.

or that a part of the joy of the search is the journey looking for it

But that doesn't have anything to do with logic.

[yeshaberto]

how would you explain the holy spirit, for example, with logic?

[Vivace]

Oh, and masturbation is fine, there is nothing in the Bible against masturbation.  Wank away all you want with impunity.

Bzzz...

Romans 6:12. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.

Corinthians 6:18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit [who] [is] in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.

[Ħ]

You're begging the question.  Your assumption is that masturbation is a sin and a form of sexual immortality, which is exactly what we're trying to figure out.  Using your logic, I could say that watching cartoons is a sin and a form of sexual immortality, and flip to those to verses and say "Voila! We must flee from cartoons!"

[Vivace]

You're begging the question.  Your assumption is that masturbation is a sin and a form of sexual immortality, which is exactly what we're trying to figure out.  Using your logic, I could say that watching cartoons is a sin and a form of sexual immortality, and flip to those to verses and say "Voila! We must flee from cartoons!"

You are splitting hairs and taking it to a step where it starts to become paranoia over simply living a moral life. When you walk down the street, do you look at women, have lustful thoughts? If so, should you just stop walking down the street? The problem with taking the quotes above like that is that out of context they work to a point. But like anyone posting bible quotes I would hope the person reading them understands that a redaction criticism is absolutely necessary as well as a praying on the quotes themselves to ask and understand what exactly is being said to me. I would ask you to pray on the quotes and on our questions and ask these questions to God. To answer your question, if watching cartoons causes you to lust and act immoral, I think there are more problems there then the masterbation question itself.

[Ħ]

I think you missed my point.  There's a pool of actions that fall into the category of "sexual immorality".  Different cultures have different opinions on what those actions are.  What I am looking for is exactly what the Bible says those actions are, either through direct command or example.  My problem is that some of these actions are discreetly mentioned (premarital intercourse, homosexuality, etc.) and some of these actions are not talked about at all (kissing, masturbation, etc.).  So, should our approach be a cautious one that rejects anything that could possibly cross the line, or should our approach be one that is strictly literal?  I'm inclined to side with the second option.  The first is a slippery slope where virtually anything can qualify for sexual immorality.

[Vivace]

I'm going to quote what I said above again because I know you missed it.

The problem with taking the quotes above like that is that out of context they work to a point. But like anyone posting bible quotes I would hope the person reading them understands that a redaction criticism is absolutely necessary as well as a praying on the quotes themselves to ask and understand what exactly is being said to me. I would ask you to pray on the quotes and on our questions and ask these questions to God.

You *need* to pray on these quotes and *pray* on these issues and have the Bible speak to you on them. There are many things that are not mentioned explictly in the Bible, but we still have clues and ideas that give us the means to deal with them. That's where you are going to have to go. There is no straight forward easy answer to your question.

[Ħ]

But there's a problem there.  If I pray about it, and get a from God, but someone else prays about it and get a  , don't we have a contradiction in moral values that are supposed to be objective and independent of persons trying to follow them?

[yeshaberto]

so much of the new testament is rooted in principles and the assumption of maturity.  we put fences around our yards when our children are young to protect them from danger.  as they grow older, they mature and no longer require fences.
the bible does not specifically delinate sexual actions because it is rooted in principles and the assumption of maturity.
kissing or hugging are not sinful.  there are principles, however, that would allow them to lead to sexual immorality.  maturity sees the danger and uses caution (without a fence saying that kissing is wrong).
other things, though, like intimate touching, oral sex, etc are more obvious, inasmuch as they are always (with extreme exceptions) done in private because people understand it is a private issue.  other principles clearly draw attention to the sexual line that is crossed

[hefdaddy42]

how would you explain the holy spirit, for example, with logic?

I wouldn't.  But I wasn't aware that we were speaking about the holy spirit.

[AndyDT]

so much of the new testament is rooted in principles and the assumption of maturity.  we put fences around our yards when our children are young to protect them from danger.  as they grow older, they mature and no longer require fences.
the bible does not specifically delinate sexual actions because it is rooted in principles and the assumption of maturity.
kissing or hugging are not sinful.  there are principles, however, that would allow them to lead to sexual immorality.  maturity sees the danger and uses caution (without a fence saying that kissing is wrong).
other things, though, like intimate touching, oral sex, etc are more obvious, inasmuch as they are always (with extreme exceptions) done in private because people understand it is a private issue.  other principles clearly draw attention to the sexual line that is crossed

So it must take some tact and understanding on both parties to be able to pull away when one or both starts to get turned on?

[Ħ]

I imagine that whoever you're with would respect your decision, even if they're turned on.  And if they don't, then they're not someone you should be with anyway.