|
Reverend (m)
|
This is the interesting view of our church: Masturbation is not a sin. God provided masturbation for man. Physically stimulating one's self to orgasm in privacy is not a sin. God speaks of it in Leviticus 15:16. If you also read verse 18 the message is clear. God is speaking of two ways to have an orgasm: alone or with a woman. He compares them on an equal with each other. There is no sin offering specified for either one. God connected uncleanness (social quarantine) with both ways of having an orgasm. This was not a punishment, but a way to encourage his people to do it at the right time of day. If it were done at the end of the day, followed with a bath, just before sunset, His people would gain the greatest benefit from the release of endorphins to promote better sleep and the uncleanness would be virtually null. By this timing method, God is allowing a person to have an orgasm as much as once a day without suffering any significant uncleanness. It also discourages a person from neglecting his sexual feelings until he has a wet dream that would make him unclean and quarantined for the whole next day. Paul supports the principle of frequent sexual attentions in 1 Cor. 7:5. There is a concern though, in the New Testament Jesus warns about what is going on in the imagination. He stated that lusting for a woman in one's mind is adultery. So, thankfully enjoy the great sensations that God created into your sexual organs for you to delight in and let those great feelings bring you up to orgasm without imagining any forbidden relationships. Remember, Satan can cause you to feel guilty. The Bible says he is the accuser of mankind. Wouldn't he want to make you feel guilty about masturbating so you would avoid it and have no escape from his temptations when your hormones built up? You bet! So, now you can send the Devil and his false guilt on his way with the assurance that God's Word has clearly provided for you to masturbate. This is what 1 Cor. 10:13 is speaking of, because without the provision of masturbation, man's hormones could drive him beyond his ability to resist the real temptation to commit sexual sin upon another person. We are very interested to hear you thoughts on this subject. Reverend Felcher Church of the Kinky Mary Magdeline http://kinkymarymagdelinechurch.cjb.net |
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
Dear Reverend,
It was interesting to find this line on your website: "All Sex Acts Become A Divine Union Between God And Man."
All sex acts? "All"?? You mean to tell me that rape, incest, fornication, adultery, pedophilia, paraphilia, bestiality, and algolagnia are expressions of your "divine union between God and man"? Darwin's ape is almost swooning!
For any Christian (and Muslim) who knows the real Jesus Christ, be warned that the Bible predicted that Satan will send his emissaries to subtly deceive the minds of people by presenting a counterfeit 'Jesus' and a counterfeit 'gospel' (see II Cor. 11:3-4). The Jesus I know is not a promoter of sexual vice. I have no doubt that this is one classic example fulfilling Biblical prophecy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
demmy (m)
|
I wonder who is behind this handle!  |
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend (m)
|
"Rape, incest, fornication, adultery, pedophilia, paraphilia, bestiality, and algolagnia"
I find it rather strange that you have interpreted the sexual act as having to be one of the above and I find it all the more interesting that your mind immediately wanders in this direction when the word sex is mentioned. Maybe Satan has already found a home in your soul.
That is the very ignorance that we preach against. The ignorance that sex should be seen as something dirty and that natural sex is no-existent and only the acts that you have mentioned are reality. This is very narrow minded and archaic attitude and one that has caused many problems.
It is absurd reasoning as yours that has caused all the scandals in the Catholic church. Priests and Nuns not being able to perform natural God given acts has led to the terrible amount of child and other sexual abuse in the catholic and other churches.
I am sorry that the wonderful and pleasurable act of sexual union has to thought of at your pity level, but this will change one day and people will realise as many already do that sex is a natural God given pleasure for us all to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
See who's talking about ignorance. On your website, when you stated that ALL sex acts becomes a divine union between God and man, on what grounds were you leaving out the sexual vices I mentioned in my reply? If you had simply qualified what sexual activities you meant, you certainly would not have used such a broad adjective as ' ALL' - that single word includes every kind of sex act. "ALL sex acts" could be used by pedophiles as an equal excuse for your so-called 'wonderful and pleasurable act' because pedophiles engage in their act with the aim of deriving "pleasure", albeit of a perverse sort. I am neither Catholic nor against sex within proper context (another mark of your ignorance). I am a Christian who believes what the Bible teaches: ""Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." ( Heb.13:4). What is written on your website is clear that purity is not what you're promoting, and if you were expecting me to be mute when you twisted the story of John 12:3-8, you got it all mixed up. For readers who might not know how grave this is, let me post the references: The Bible, John 12:3-8 3Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 7Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 8For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always. _____________ # _______________ # _________________ # _______ from The Kinky Church Website, http://kinkymarymagdelinechurch.cjb.net "It was just before Jesus went into Jerusalem, at a meal there, a woman – Mary Magdeline – poured precious fragrant oil over Jesus' head and wiped his feet with her hair. She
massaged him and caused him great pleasure! This drew scorn from his disciples. Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus objected. 'Why weren’t this perfume sold, and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages! Why do you allow this woman
to rub your private parts? At first, Peter said that Jesus shouldn't wash his feet. Then when Jesus said that it was important he said, 'Then don't just wash his feet and his hands but also the rest of his body. Mary did so and JC was pleased." Anyone who did not take the time to read what you posted on your website would not know how much you twisted the Gospel narative in John 12:3-8. How perverse that in full view of the disciples, Mary Magdalene would "rub the private parts" of the Messiah! You had rubbed in your own silly imagination into the narative to make it sound like what you described was exactly what must have transpired. This is called "adding and subtracting" from God's word; and God calls those who twist scripture this way "liars!" (see Proverbs 30:5-6 - "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar"). Infact, when you compare the Gospels, it seems most likely that the Mary who anointed Jesus' feet in John 12 is not Mary Magdalene, but Mary the sister of Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead (compare John 11:1-2). Sex is a gift and blessing from God - the Bible does not condemn it as far as I know. God does not frown on it at all, and there are lots of Scripture verses to delineate that. But what God warns against is the perversion of His gifts to man, as in I Cor.10:8 and Heb.13:4. For you to have twisted God's word and state that Mary Magdalene had rubbed the private parts of the Messiah falls in this class of perversion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend (m)
|
One of the most damaging sex-negative messages of any religion is the concept of "Original Sin," the idea that because we are born sexual beings, we are sinners who deserve to burn in hell, and if we want to go to heaven, we must only have sex for procreation--and even then, God forbid we should enjoy it.
This ideology was developed by Saint Paul, who seems to have been fighting unwanted homosexual urges, and was cultivated by Saint Augustine who sought refuge in celibacy after a love affair gone sour (his wealthy mother disapproved of his low-class lover and made him miserable for it; no wonder he abhorred lust!).
Belief in Original Sin feeds the most violent alienated parts of ourselves. It tells us that because we are sexual, we are bad, and God will punish us horribly unless we repress our natural sexual desires. In the name of God, this belief that sex is dirty has perpetrated rampant cruelty, bigotry, timidity and stupidity, creating religious sexual abuse in homes, in temples and in churches, generating intense shame about our bodies and desires, fueling the belief that parts of our bodies are dirty, fostering hatred and confusion about pleasure.
Why so much repression? What real purpose does it serve? Simply put, people in power like to keep their power, and taboos against deviating from the religiously decreed social order help them to do just that. Individual religions may or may not really serve God, and we'll only find out if they do when we pass through the Lord's Pearly Gates. But there's one thing we know right now: Religions serve those in charge of the religion. Taboos help those already in power, keeping those with less power in fear for their souls if they break the taboo and enjoy greater power (or pleasure), than they "deserve."
Religious rules against sex for men are generally pretty excessive. Religious rules against sex for women tend to be considerably harsher, certainly more degrading. But, when you remember that religions serve those in charge of the religion, is it any wonder that women's sexuality is riddled with taboos, covered up, denigrated and despised by all the major world religions, when there are no women priests or ayatollahs, and very few female ministers and rabbis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
gigitte (f)
|
reverend!
that is not what the concept of original sin is about!
where did you get this info from, because i wann know
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend (m)
|
Dear Gigitte The concept some have of original sin is thought by others to be full of inconsistencies. For those who see the effect of the Fall as deprivation of something that is their due, the doctrine of original sin contradicts the principle, stated even in the Mosaic Law, that the children are not to be punished for the sins of the fathers. Those who understand original sin as personal guilt and sin, rather than as sin in an analogous sense, are confronted with a yet graver difficulty, particularly if they conceive of sin as a matter of a person's soul as such, rather than of the ensouled body or enfleshed soul that is the person. Sin, they say, is an issue of the soul, but, if we inherit our bodies from our parents and our souls from God, then original sin, which is inherited with human nature from our parents, must be a matter of the body; or, if it is a matter of the soul, original sin must come from God. Martin Luther's ad hoc solution was: Do not listen to human wisdom, but to the holy word of the Bible. Logically this is argumentum ad auctoritatem fallacy combined with argumentum ad ignoramum. Those who interpret the symbolic images in the account of the Fall as literal realities face the problem of reconciling with the assumed unconditional love of God an account that they must interpret as God setting a trap for the first human beings and then punishing them and their descendants for falling into it - in addition to problems such as explaining the whimsical picture of God "walking in the garden in the cool of the day" (Genesis 3:  . On the other hand, those who accept Christianity but deny original sin have - unless they judge that baptism should not in fact be conferred on someone who has not committed sin in the ordinary sense (actual sin) - the problem of interpreting the ancient Christian practice of conferring on infants what the Nicene Creed calls the "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Some, mistakenly, cite Onan in Gen 38:9 as suggesting that masturbation is a sin. In fact, "onanism" has become a synonym for masturbation. But this is obviously an error, and a rather daft one at that. We know what Onan did, for it is spelled out for us in lurid detail; and we know why it was a sin: he was maliciously using and cheating Tamar in way that was wrong. In any case, what Onan was doing was certainly not masturbating, and you have to be pretty dimwitted to miss this. In fact, there is no place in scripture where masturbation is even mentioned, much less forbidden. This is a very odd situation since it is so common a human experience, and given that scripture speaks of other sexual sins (some fairly perverse and rare) without any shyness at all. Since scripture does not forbid masturbation directly, neither should Christians in general. "Nothing beyond what is written" in terms of how we should help lead others to the Lord is the rule. We should stick to emphasizing the things God has told us are important, and not be teaching things that the Lord has never expressed His opinion on. Commit yourself to a certain amount of pain, and commit yourself not to sin in thought, and I think you will find that masturbation cannot be done that often, but when it is needed it is a true blessing as a way to keep your body under control. We should not indulge our bodies, but we should "honor" them and learn to live in them properly in this sinful world. For singles, God has given the ability to masturbate, and has not forbidden it. For married couples who are apart and who are thinking of each other, the same applies. |
|
|
|
|
|
whitesoftx (m)
|
Go ahead Reverend! Tell them, school them about Masturbation!!![s][/s][b][/b]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhodalyn (f)
|
preach onnnnnnnnnnnn
|
|
|
|
|
|
whitesoftx (m)
|
Hey Reverend! Hit them On!!! we feel you!!!  |
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
Reverend, you've certainly trailed off from the dangers I pointed out in your system. This dribbling around only shows that you have no focus and would stop at nothing to push the silliness of your kinky church website.
1. When you stated on your website that "All Sex Acts Become A Divine Union Between God And Man", did that not include 'every type of sex act'? By the single word "ALL" you have made a broad statement that would include rape, pedophilia, paraphilia, and others listed in my first reply; and that is contrary to the teaching of God's Word.
2. The Mary in John 12 who anointed Jesus' feet was the sister of Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead (see John 11:1-2); it was not Mary Magdalene as you supposed. Secondly, you went so far as to distort the Gospel narative by making Judas ask Jesus the perverted question: "Why do you allow this woman to rub your private parts?" This is obviously a wicked twisting of Scripture because the Bible did not teach such nonsense.
3. I am neither Catholic nor a sex pervert. I believe the Bible promotes healthy sexual relations between men and women for intimacy, pleasure, fidelity and procreation. However, God has zero tolerance for sexual perversion, and a classic example of this is His judgemnet that fell on Sodom and Gomorrha -
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."
- (Deut. 23:17)
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner,
giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an
example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." - (Jude 1:7)
4. The idea of original sin that you theorised is not sustained in the Bible nor was Paul its pioneer. Both in the Old and New Testaments, sexual immorality is clearly taught as ungodly activities. When you wrote that St. Augustine abhorred lust, it sounded as though you were in fact trying to justify lust as a positive indulgence. As far as I know, a Christian who is led of the Spirit of God does not spend his or her days fulfilling the lust of the flesh - (girl.5:16). God's warning against the type of aberration you're promoting when you seek to "break the taboo and enjoy greater power (or pleasure)" will only invite His wrath.
5. Now to state that ""All Sex Acts Become A Divine Union Between God And Man" is to teach that age-old lie of the deceiver that the central feature in spiritual worship is sex. In Acts 19:23-41 the worship of the goddess Diana is just one such movement in the Orient world where, among several things, temple services consisted of ceremonial prostitution (see the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on the subject "Diana, Artemis"). This concept is adverse to the central message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that is why we see Paul in Acts 19 in danger for his life. God has called believers to cleaness and holiness, and the character of the Gospel is that we may serve God without fear and in the righteousness, peace and joy of the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:74 and Rom.14:17).
The whole gamut of your religious system is unbiblical and anti-Christian regardless the cosmetic language in which you dress it up to sound like you are presenting a Biblical message. The 'Jesus' on your website is not the Jesus of the Bible - it is that impostor called 'another Jesus' in II Cor.11:3-4. You should not need to devise another dribbling excuse for the perverse 'pleasure' of your so-called kinky church; rather, you and all those who have been misled by your system need urgently to repent and come to the real Jesus Christ the Son of God. He alone saves and He will save anyone who asks no matter how degrading the aberration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
That is precisely the point. The deceit is subtle and until you go to the kinky website and see the nonsense being promoted there, you'll never be able (perhaps) to realise that the kinkychurch is a masquerade of counterfeit Christianity that lures the unsuspecting. I mean, how do I wake up one morning and teach my son that in John 12:3-8' Judas asked Jesus the question: " Why do you allow this woman to rub your private parts?" If that is not wickedness, what else is it? I care less whatever latin Reverend speaks - I've an equally good grasp of the lingo. But if anyone is interested in the truth of God's word, I wait to see what Bible the kinky Reverend has been reading to have come up with Judas' question of Mary Magdalene rubbing someone's private parts, much less the Messiah's! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend (m)
|
Bari_Kade!, what makes you so confident and sure that your interpretation of both the bible and christianity is correct?
Which translation of the bible do you use? Who translated it?
It is exactly attitudes like yours that we are fighting against. The lets label everyone a sinner for the slightest reason brigade. It is because of people like you that Christian church attendance is falling around the World. People are fed up with being chastized for the smallest of reasons and being demonized by biggots for doing nothing else than what is natural. But things do change for the better and certains Christian organisations are modernizing themselves for the 21st Century.
If you have time to comb through your bible, trying to interpret only the bad things God had to say about human kind then I pity you.
Mainstream Christianity seems compelled to eliminate, alter, add, or create changes to the Bible. These, of course, substantiate their position. Some believe in God, but not the Bible. Others believe solely in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Organizations have even created their own books or testimony. The Bible, however, is not multiple choice, it is a way of life (Revelation 22:18,19). So what is your belief?
Even though others may not believe or agree, we must be careful that our actions, or fruits, do not contradict our belief. Matthew 7:13-20 tells us to judge others by their fruits. Look carefully at people and their words to measure the fruits. Are they better off or fulfilled because of their view? What would life be like if everyone had only one view? How do they conduct their lives? Is the fruit ripe on the outside and rotten on the inside? We must also understand God’s way as others view or judge us.
That you are ready to chastize and judge people as sinners so easily is a sad reflection on your outdated beliefs and could mean that you truly do have a rotten inside!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend (m)
|
Bari_Kade
That is the exact point that I am trying to make. Everybody is free to interpret the teachings of the bible in their own way. That is exactly what is bible is in the first place, it has over the years been rewritten countless times and translated between who knows how many languages. The Holy Bible is only an interpretation of what may or may not have happened!
What were the views of the person who originally translated the bible into English? How come we can believe the interpretation of one other person. It is an absolute minefield.
On the other hand the ten commandments by which we should live our lives are sensible and realistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
Rhodalyn, I guess he was referring to me, and not to you. That said, the kinky Reverend once again has dribble around the issue. Okay, my interpretation is wrong, bigoted, and whatever else. For the sake of fair play, would you please quote your own version or translation of the Bible where Judas asked Jesus, " Why do you allow this woman to rub your private parts?" I don't want any interpretations from you - just plain text quote in your own version of the Bible. 1. Church attendance doesn't have to fall because of me. You'll find the reason in the Bible itself (if your version is not a kinky one) - I Tim.4:1 is an example, and gives the reason for falling church attendance as an express declaration of the Spirit of God when people would be "giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." 2. " It is because of people like you that Christian church attendance is falling around the World." You were not careful to read my reply and so thought I was combing through the Bible to interpret " only the bad things God had to say about human kind." I mentioned clearly that sex is a good gift from God "for intimacy, pleasure, fidelity and procreation." That sounded like bad things to you, not so? Applause! 3. " Mainstream Christianity seems compelled to eliminate, alter, add, or create changes to the Bible." I am not a member of such persuasions, and by being careful to quote Biblical references for my replies, you ought to have understood my position. Between you and me, if anyone was adding to the Bible it surely was you - and up until now you've been dribbling around and have refused to quote me where in your own Bible Judas asked Jesus the wicked question of Mary Magdalene rubbing ___ private parts! 4. " What would life be like if everyone had only one view?" Excuse me? Did it ever occur to you that "God is not the author of confusion" and whatever He speaks is consistent and not ambiguous? ( I Cor.14:33). What then is the meaning of Paul's Spirit-led reasoning in I Cor.1:10 that we should all speak the same thing? So, I see it now - you want your own views of a kinky christianity so that sex becomes the center of your ministry. I wonder what God would say to you on that. The issues are clear - you have not shown me how Biblical your christianity is; and until you do so, your views will continue to be as far-fetched as the lollygag idea of a kinky church. |
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend (m)
|
Bari_Kade
Thank you for your carefully penned reply. I think we just have to agree to differ.
You have still not answered my original question though!
Is Masturbation A Sin Against God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
thekrafter (m)
|
Reverend, you have still not answered bari_kade's question. Where on earth did you get the idea that Mry Magdalene rubbed Jesus's privates from? No modern theologians take this view. Did you think it up on your own? Are there any arguments to support your position?
|
|
|
|
|
|
choice.A
|
On the other hand the ten commandments by which we should live our lives are sensible and realistic. My Bible is not a kinky translation, and the ten commandments in it twice warn against sexual immorality - "Thou shalt not commit adultery." and "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" - (Exo.20:14 & 17). Bari_kade, I don't know about anyone else, but thank you for pointing out the subtle dangers in what the kinkychurch was trying to promote. I am absolutely gobsmacked to have read the kinky version of John 12 saying that Judas asked Jesus, " Why do you allow this woman to rub your private parts?" Fancy that! This is the first time such a 'gospel' is reaching my ears, and I want to know where Reverend is quoting his teachings from. The issue of whether or not masturbation is sinful to God hangs in the air for now until Reverend tells us what "Bible" he has been reading to have seen Judas making reference to such a mindless question. Meanwhile, all of a sudden the kinkychurch website is 'temporarily' inaccessible - is Reverend being forced to renege and so withdraw his 'gospel' on the website - or is it just me? Reverend, your integrity as a minister is before the house and the simple question is - where did you get your revelations from? |
|
|
|
|
|
4get_me (m)
|
Hmmm, this all makes my head swirl! The first thing that strikes me is that the Reverend calls his church the " kinky_mary_magdalene_church!" I have jaded myself on searching for the various meanings of the word "kinky" and these are my findings - kinky: ( adj.) strange, weird, odd, curly, twisted, sexually perverted; Showing or appealing to bizarre or deviant tastes, especially of a sexual or erotic nature. Am I missing something? The very idea that suggests Mary Magdalene was 'kinky' and therefore in that context suitable for naming a church - gorblimey! what is this world coming to? I also thought it was just me - but the kinkychurch website is indeed 'temporarily' taken off,,, hmmm - did bari_kade's replies force our 'Reverend' to reconsider his ministry?  Reverend, where did you get your _______ from? 4gt_m. |
|
|
|
|
|
4get_me (m)
|
Oh, the kinkychurch website's back. Phew! It even gets worse and I'm holding my head in shame. What's the meaning of this other "verse" on your website just below the image:
kmab.34.1 She took his staff and tossed off his sins. His holy jism flowed
onto her and they were at one with nature and mother Earth.
First, "his sins" suggests that Jesus had sin or was a sinner, isn't it? But my Bible (not a kinky translation) says that Jesus had no sin - "but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." and "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" - (Heb.4:15; I Pet.2:22)
It's shocking to say the least, and I think bari_kade had a sharp eye to have seen clearly that you are promoting a counterfeit Jesus as II Cor. 11:3-4 warns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend (m)
|
We beleive that Jesus had normal healthy sexual relations with Mary Magdeline who was his permanent sexual partner.
Maybe this has been hinted at in the work of fiction in the book called the Davinci Code, but we think that in all probability that Jesus was a healthy virile man that performed as every other hot bloodied male. He was made in God image and we have been. It is unthinkable that he did not have the same urges and feelings as man.
Why is it such a hot topic that Jesus may have had sexual feelings and urges towards Mary Magdeline?
|
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
"We beleive that Jesus had normal healthy sexual relations with Mary Magdeline who was his permanent sexual partner."
And what is your belief based on? Where in the Bible did you read that?
"Why is it such a hot topic that Jesus may have had sexual feelings and urges towards Mary Magdeline?"
For the simple reason that you are trying to promote an unbiblical spirituality under the guise of Christianity.
First, the "Mary Magdalene - Jesus" connection is a cult philosophy that is being pushed by people whose agenda is nothing more than to distort Biblical integrity in the hope that Christians would lose the truth of God's word as to who the real Jesus Christ is. Examples are the literary works of the Da Vinci Code and the Holy Grail. Have you noticed that such works and ideas are not based on fact but rather more on fiction? How could I build my life and faith on mere fiction and speculation?
Second, if it is true that Jesus Christ had sexual feelings and urges towards Mary Magdalene, He would have been a contradiction to Himself and His teachings. Jesus taught that whosoever looks at a woman to lust at her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt.5:27-28). So, if you are suggesting that Jesus lusted ("had sexual feelings and urges") at Mary Magdalene, you are equally saying that Jesus committed adultery with her in His heart - something that is nowhere taught in the Bible.
"He was made in God image and we have been."
For the sake of not imposing my own theology on anyone, I would say that Jesus was not made in the image of God - rather, He was the express image of God Himself (Col. 1:15 and Heb.1:3). Why is this important? Because there is a world of difference between being made something and being that very thing yourself. If you don't see this, then it is easy to fall into the fallacious notion of seeing Jesus merely as a man reduced to our common level, almost as if to say that Jesus Himself had sin or was a sinner - which is what you had posted on your website (kmab.34.1 She took his staff and tossed off his sins.). On the contrary, Jesus was sinless - and that is the basis upon which our redemption is efficacious: He was both spotless and offered Himself spotless to the Father (see Heb.9:14 and I Pet.1:9).
"It is unthinkable that he did not have the same urges and feelings as man."
This idea needs important qualification. Jesus in His incarnate state as Man suffered hunger, sorrow, thirst, weariness, as well as experienced joy, love, humour, compassion, and other things. But His urges and feelings did not include such as is common to sinful man - "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man" (Jesus' statement in Matt.15:19-20). He was tempted in all points as we are but did not fall for the same urges and feelings as we do (Heb.4:15). Also, Jesus Christ was not found in the same condition as mere man - the Bible says He is separate from sinners (Heb.7:15).
All this may sound "unthinkable" to you - and it's easy to see why. If you lack a convincing reverence for the Bible as the infallible word of God, you'll easily fall for anything and resort to silly tales and fiction more than having faith in the solid Scriptures. It is no wonder then that you have failed to give me one scripture reference for your teachings; all you have been able to muster are humanistic arguments that will endanger the souls of those who have lost grip of the living Word of God and then read your teachings and ideas.
I am not trying to antagonise you for any and every scribble of your pen, Reverend. It will be such a celebration to read that you have turned round from your unbiblical position to embrace God's truth; for Jesus Himself said of God's Word: "Thy Word is truth!" (John 17:17).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend (m)
|
Many faith groups discuss what the Bible has to say about sexual behavior. But there are few biblical passages that reveal Jesus' beliefs on these matters.
One source claims that the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) records 298 suggestions, recommendations and instructions by Jesus on how we should behave and believe. (We have not been able to verify this number.) Since he is recorded as mentioning sexual behavior only 0 to 3 times, he obviously did not give it great emphasis. The record is totally silent about his attitudes towards the main sexually-related religious controversies of the present day: abortion, equal rights for homosexuals, same-sex marriage, pre-marital sex, etc.
Jesus' statements on sexuality
Jesus is recorded as having made only three direct comments that might be interpreted as relating to sexual behavior: John 4:16-18 records a conversation that he had with a Samaritan woman: "Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." (KJV)
Some theologians interpret this passage as a rebuke of her unorthodox past and present marital status. Jesus is seen as criticizing her for having had so many husbands in the past, and for living with a man without having been married first.
Others suggest that Christ simply wanted to demonstrated his knowledge of her personal life so that she would recognize that he was no ordinary individual. It seems to have worked, because she immediately identified Jesus as a prophet and asked him a theological question about prayer.
John 8:1-11 records a meeting between Jesus, some scholars, Pharisees, and a woman who has been caught in adultery. The Mosaic law (Leviticus 20:10, and Deuteronomy 22:22) required that she must be executed by stoning. The passage in Deuteronomy is quite definite: "both the man, and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel." They asked Jesus what should be done with the woman. He recommended that the thrower of the first stone be required to be without sin. Since no individual is without sin, his suggestion is equivalent to pardoning the woman. He thus recommended that the woman be allowed to live. This was a quadruple violation of Mosaic Law, which specified the following: Deuteronomy 22:22: Each incidence of adultery was considered an evil blot on the land itself; it had to be purged from Israel. The only method of doing that was to kill the adulterers.
Deuteronomy 17:7: When a person is to be executed under Jewish law, the first stones were to be thrown by the witnesses to the crime. (An trial leading to an execution had to have at least two witnesses. Only then were the remainder of the people allowed to take part in the murder of the criminal.)
There is no passage in the Mosaic law which states that executioners have to be sinless.
There is no passage in the Mosaic law which allows an adulterer to be pardoned.
Later, Jesus said to the woman: "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Through these words, he recognized her adultery as a sin.
This passage is apparently a forgery that was not written by the author(s) of the gospel of John. It was written by an anonymous individual and later inserted after chapter 7 by an anonymous editor. The New International Version of the Bible has a footnote at this point stating: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11." Other manuscripts place it at the end of the Gospel of John. Still others insert it after Luke 21:38. The Jesus Seminar calls it a "floating" or "orphan" story. 1 The Fellows of the Seminar agreed that while "the words did not originate in their present form with Jesus, they nevertheless assigned the words and story to a special category of things they wish Jesus had said and done." The passage is apparently a traditional Christian story that found its way into various later manuscripts but was not part of the original writings by the author(s) of the Gospel of John.
Matthew 5:31 and Matthew 19:9 state that Jesus did not approve of divorce, except in a case of sexual misconduct. Various versions of the Bible have translated the misconduct as as adultery, fornication, unchastity, unfaithfulness or marital unfaithfulness. He deviated from Jewish law, which said that a man could freely divorce his wife. However, in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, Jesus is recorded as having taken a different stance. He said that divorce is unacceptable for any reason.
Mark was the earliest gospel in the Christian Scriptures. So it is probable that his passages more closely reflects Jesus actual teaching - that divorce was forbidden for any reason. The gospels of Luke and Matthew were largely copied from Mark. Most theologians believe that they were written 10 to 30 years later. The author of Matthew probably reflected a Christian tradition that developed in the final third of the 1st century CE - that adultery was an acceptable grounds for divorce.
Conclusions:
Summarizing Jesus' statements involving human sexuality: The quotation from John 4 may or may not criticize the woman's sexual behavior and marital history.
The quotation from John 8 is a forgery by an unknown author, which is not part of the original gospel of John. Its authority is questionable.
He may or many not have believed that sexual misconduct was a sufficiently serious ground to justify a divorce.
So, a case can be made that Jesus was totally silent on sexual matters! If an individual wants to match Jesus' expectations, then he/she will have to fall back on his general ethical teachings: to treat and value one's neighbor as one would wish to be treated.
to not be exploitive, dominating, manipulative, controlling, violent, or abusive towards others.
to, above all, not abuse children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
There are a few observations I'd like to make: 1. It seems to me that your position is more about casting doubts on Scripture than upholding its integrity. Anyone current with the news knows that the Jesus Seminar (JS) group have one agenda - to deny the authenticity of the Bible as the word of God. They do this in several ways: (a) deny that the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ is true, (b) that Christ spoke only a fraction of the words attributed to him in the Gospels, (c) that the New Testament is false; and (d) that the miracles of Christ are unverifiable and untrustworthy. You can read just a few of these on the following links (or make an objective internet search yourself): http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/jesusSeminar1.htm http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0300W2.htm In the face of such, why would anyone want to trust the Jesus Seminar group more than the Bible? " This passage is apparently a forgery" is the classic vernacular of the Jesus Seminar. And everything else follows that trend - that the Bible can't be trusted as God's word. 2. Let us assume that theologians like you have a valid claim that the New Testament is untrustworthy and you have grounds to believe such theories as are popular with the Jesus Seminar. If most parts of the New Testament are forgeries, how do you validate your own statement on your website that: (a) Judas asked Jesus why He allowed Mary Magdalene to rub his private parts? (b) Jesus was supposed to have had sin (kmab.34.1 "She took his staff and tossed off his sins")? Whether or not you trust the New Testament is of little import now, since you're more inclined to believe the outlandish claims of the Jesus Seminar. Even if you can't take the Biblical account for what they say, what gives you the grounds to believe that the claims attributed to you on your website are verifiable? You see, what you're painfully trying to push and dribble around is a form of spirituality that is contrary to the real character of Jesus Christ. There's no such thing as your Judas' question other than a fabrication (as is typical with the Jesus Seminar); nor can you authentically prove Jesus to be a sinner - again that is the very thing that the Jesus Seminar is trying to sell, even though they have no solid evidence for that. Reverend, your "Mary-Magdalene-Jesus" sexual connection is a cultic theory that even the Jesus Seminar group and others like them have not been able to verify; they only make the allegations and lean on 'evidence' as weak as spider webs like the fictional works of Dan Brown and others like him. The Biblical and historical Jesus was not a sinner, otherwise how could He have been your Saviour? |
|
|
|
|
|
asanga (m)
|
Welldone Bari kade you have shown us that you are a true Christian forget the Reverend he is one of those saying -ve things about the scripture send me your email addy. welldone once again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend (m)
|
Asanga, are you trying to tell us that you have never masturbated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
choice.A
|
Asanga, are you trying to tell us that you have never masturbated? Well, here is a definite answer for you: I have never masturbated. I hope that answers your question without any dribbling; and I want answers to my questions without your dribbling. This whole exercise is so silly, Reverend. I wonder why you have an obsession for sex and masturbation - should those be the central elements in your life as a minister? So, suppose I have masturbated before, how does that add to my spirituality or be the defining characteristic of my relationship to my Saviour? And since I have never masturbated, what does it take away from me as a Christian? I'm disappointed and fed up with your "dribbling" around issues (as bari_kade rightly said). You still haven't answered most of the questions raised here. So, let's say the Bible can't be trusted and is filled with errors, how is it that you can trust the validity of the ten commandments, (at least, up until the Jesus Seminar, JS, gives you a spider web reason to distrust it)? More disturbing is your lack of response to two fundamental questions that bari_kade asked you: 1. Your Judas' question to Jesus about Mary Magdalene rubbing ____ private parts: on what authority did you make that assertion? Since the Bible is a fairy tale to you, what is the proof that that question of Judas ever occured in history? 2. Who is Jesus Christ to you - your Saviour or a sexually perverted sinner? These are questions that don't require your dribbling - I want straight answers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend (m)
|
If you have never masturbated, I can agree with you that there was probably no dribbling :-)
The question was : Is Masturbation A Sin Against God?
Why is it so difficult for people to answer this question. You have told me that you have never masturbated, but you can not give and answer to the original question of this thread!
Everybody is firing off at tangents instead of giving an answer to the original question!
|
|
|
|
|
|
choice.A
|
It's a simple thing really. My answer to your question is dependent on which 'God' you are referring to. So far, it does not appear that you're presenting the Christian God as long as statements attributed to you on your website clearly and strongly suggest that Jesus Christ was a sinner. In that case, was the Biblical Jesus a sinner because the Bible does not teach that He masturbated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
smellie_breton.gif (4.91 KB, 59x48 )
