“Christian” marriage is outlawed by the Bible. I’m not exaggerating. You’ll find all of the stunning details, along with citations to the Bible, at Dwindling in Unbelief. How does the Bible outlaw traditional “Christian” marriages? Here are some of the Bible rules listed:
- The Bible says that Christians should not marry.
- But if a Christian man decides to get married (which he shouldn’t), he can have more than one wife.
- And if he doesn’t like one of his wives (like if she’s unclean or ugly or something), he can divorce her.
- If a Christian man gets married and then discovers on his wedding night that his new wife is not a virgin, then he and the other Christian men must stone her to death.
- Christians shouldn’t have sex (even if they are married, which they shouldn’t be).
- Christian parents must beat their children (which they shouldn’t have, since they shouldn’t get married or have sex).
- Good Christians must hate their families.
(If they abandon them for Jesus, he’ll give them a big reward.)
This list list only includes the first seven rules. Go to Dwindling in Unbelief for the details and the pinpoint citations. Don’t just trust me on these rules. Go read the Bible. These rules are all there, clearly stated.
Conclusion: We need to march to America’s heartland and start picketing traditional Christian marriage because it is clear that traditional Christian marriage contravenes the clear teachings of the Bible.
As in most of life's experiences, there is more at work than simply a physiological response or self-gratifcation from the physical sensations associated the act of masterbation.
As a means of self-exploration and understanding physiological responses, I would say there is nothing immoral about masterbation if that were simply all that was involved.
If you wish to discuss the pro's, con's or neutrality of a physical activity you simply can't disconnect it from the mental, emotional, social and volitional aspects of those participating in the activity, unless of course all we are is animals. Then all this other stuff is ultimately meaningless, and "whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" as the saying goes.
The various aspects of human activities and experience are in and of themselves not matters open for condemnation or glorification. Viewed apart from human motivation and matters of volition they are meaningless and pointless as Solomon would say. And he ought to know the vanity and pointlessness of many wives and concubines.
So yes, from a simply physiological vantage point of the individual person learning about his/her physiological responses there is not much that can bestated as being harmful to others.
Paul said, all things are lawful to me but I will not be mastered by any of them. However, any person who becomes secretive about their addiction to anything is defrauding themselves and those who think they are being honest towards others regarding their personal habits and personal character.
If a person is asked point blank when was the last time they had a physiological release of sexual energy through an orgasm, people are more prone to tell others what they think the other person wants to hear rather then the truth about their own character and habits for one reason or another.
But that is not all that is going on in the minds of people who become sexual addicts, be it to masterbation, pre-marital sex, homo-sexual sex, incestous sex, forcible rape, or drug/intoxication rape.
The human mind and volition are what get people into trouble. Many marriages end when there is sexual infidelity because of the loss of trust and honesty.
This often begins through mental activity and gradual volitional choices long before the actual physiological deed is experienced. This is why Jesus made statements like looking upon a woman to lust after her is really what adultery is all about. It is not only simply a matter of ones's personal, private space, it tends to grow to include others. At the very least it grows to include a requisite approval from others for the behavior they are habitually being mastered by. This is why Paul said it is better for people to not be mastered by anything, be it lawful or unlawful.
The persistent sexual addict, be it to any form or variety of sexual indulgence (including masterbation) is being mastered by their personal private space that has spilled over into overt and external behavior that will sooner or later make its impact upon their relationships with others, whether they want to admit it or not.
This is because people tend to view truth as the cut and dry facts concerning behavior rather than as the personal character and habits of the person. Jesus said I am the truth, the way and the life. Its not what a person does or doesn't do that determines what truth is. That would mean people by majority opinion could change truth from year to year, day to day or from relationship to relationship. That would not be truth from how I view it. That would mean truth is convieniently that which I and my friends agree to be truth for today. This enables people to have extreme situational ethics that permits them to live as they would like.
We have no idea how our secretive personal habits and idea really affect others, so what, we're just in it for ourselves and whose going to tell us otherwise?
Karl: Let me try again. Assume that one's significant other (if this makes you uneasy, consider it to be one's spouse) is away for a week, and one is having trouble concentrating on work and on sleeping because one is horny. My question to you is this: According to the Bible, is it OK for a person to masturbate even once in such a situation?
You are welcome to bifurcate your answer, if you need to distinguish between the old and new testaments: 1) What would the OT God say? 2) What would Jesus say?
I suspect that this hybrid topic of sex and religion might make you anxious, but there is no "e" in masturbation.
Karl writes:—"Just because two or three or four or any number of people have agreed that what they are involved in is not harming anyone else, their vantage point is not free and clear from causing harm/destruction to the perspectives/beliefs of others."
Ah, now we get into the meat of it. Harm to perspectives and beliefs…insofar as one is to be responsible in this life, it must begin with being responsible for ones own perspectives and beliefs. If you indulge in something that you believe will violate your sense of responsibility toward someone else's beliefs, then you are a hypocrite, especially if you then condemn someone else for doing something that offends those same beliefs you've just violated.
How to put this so it doesn't sound flip…
If Mrs. Grundy insists on believing that people she doesn't know should not swing from the chandeliers in Las Vegas, she has set herself up to be harmed. I, as a chandelier swinger, owe her nothing.
If my parents have made me promise them never to indulge such acrobatics, and I do so anyway, they have basically set up a system of emotional blackmail. It is their inhibitions and tastes that this would offend, not mine, and holding me responsible for their ill-ease is immoral. But I would still be a hypocrite.
If I refused to make such promise and go off and live my life as I choose, I am technically free of hypocrisy, but if I then flaunt my choices to them with the view to shocking them and hurting them, then I am an asshole.
If I manage to live my life privately and they never find out, I have done no harm. If someone else decides to tell them what I'm going, the harm is in the telling, not in my doing.
If they elect to be mature and make no claims on my private and personal proclivities, then I will feel no shame and if, by chance, they are subsequently offended by my lifestyle, it's on them. They never said and it's none of their business.
A similar chain of ethical logic holds for any partner I may indulge my chandelier swinging with.
The main point, though, is in the act of consent.
Now, sure, life isn't that simple and people get hurt all the time, mainly but not always because someone at some point didn't open their mouth and express themselves. But we should be aware.
Following these sorts of principles, though, I am not responsible for someone else's perspectives and beliefs. That is a moral minefield and may be fickle to boot, and no one has a right to lay their foibles off on me.
We always take chances when we interact. Just talking to someone can at times engender the most precarious of consequences. We cannot let such considerations render us mute. People have all sorts of tripwires, sometimes tripwires of which they are wholly unaware until someone actually trips over one. You may well be right, that in this kind of game it is "safer" to find one partner and hue rigorously to monogamy, but even that has pitfalls when it comes to the psychological sinkholes of those around us. One could go insane trying to anticipate them all.
But we are not beholden to other peoples' neuroses.
The obsequious obsessions some people indulge over other peoples' sex lives is a form of neuroses, often voyeurism at its most twisted, and ammunition for the kind of blackmail that comes of the heading of codependency. When I say Do No Harm, I do not include worrying over someone else's sex-averse neurotic control issues.
If you set it up for yourself that if your second cousin will hurt you by sleeping with someone out of wedlock, frankly, I believe that's a sign of immaturity. Get over it. It's not much removed from families who place high value on keeping marriage partners within the same ethnic group or religion. It's a control factor. It's childish. It's none of anyone's business. And if you get offended, well…there's always therapy.
Sorry, couldn't pass this one up.
Karl writes:—"Viewed apart from human motivation and matters of volition they are meaningless and pointless as Solomon would say. And he ought to know the vanity and pointlessness of many wives and concubines."
They weren't pointless. They were political. He was a king. They were treaties.
Karl
You are (I believe) being purposefully obtuse.
If I do something in private I cannot, by definition, harm anyone outside of that private circle. Unless, of course, my privacy is invaded. But that alone would require the person invading my privacy to break 'the golden rule'.
Invading my privacy can be considered 'doing me harm' if you then use whatever you discover to 'do me harm' in public. The golden rule is not simplistic, you see. It relies upon causative chains of events. It recognizes than a 'seeming' harmless act (such as invasion of privacy) can become harmful (prohibitions against consensual private behaviors).
That's why the golden rule is a rule best employed by adults, and why we have more specific rules for children. Not because things (ruled upon) are intrinsically bad or damaging. But simply that children are not yet capable of recognizing and analyzing chains of events to determine harm.
One example is alcohol. It is a socially acceptable 'drug' that is used by a large proportion of adult society, but we proscribe its use by children. Why? Because they do not have the intellectual or emotional depth to understand the implications of their actions. (There are probably many exceptions, just as there are many so-called adults who do not fit this definition of adult).
Sex is generally a private act. How I, or anyone else, chooses to conduct themselves consensually in private is none of my business. It should, likewise, be none of yours.
The extension to the golden rule, is of course, ensuring that others do no harm. This is why we accept police, and the legal profession, to act on our behalf, and why we codify such rules in law, for the benefit of society as a whole.
Some laws are in opposition to the golden rule. I believe such laws to be generally unjust.
Most religions are completely opposed to the golden rule, since by their nature they must impose their definition of 'good' and 'bad' upon my behavior – regardless of any harm.
I challenge you to honestly identify a situation where the golden rule would result in actual harm, where that 'harm' was not simply some person's reaction ('ick') to a private act.
Mark.
Bravo!
This needs to be on my sig!
Many of Solomon's marriages were of a volitional choice for the sake of politics. Pointless to him as marriages go, because of his true heart relationship with the one he was committed to and devoted to, see the Song of Solomon.
Erich, the picture you paint is one of perspective. I'd prefer to take two aspirin and a tall glass of water. Not that I haven't done or experienced what you write about. Nor would I fault someone for their preference for relieving sexual tension through masterbation.
You apparently didn't get much of what I said about honest and one's relationship to truth. I choose to not be mastered by sexual inclinations to the point that I feel obliged to seek out the approval of others.
You seem to be heading from private spaces to swinging by increments.
I try to not judge people by their passions regarding sexual activity, I prefer to let others decide that for themselves
Sounds like you're refusing to answer my question, Karl. I want to know what guidance is given by (according to many people) the world's foremost authority on morality, the bible. If it can't answer this simple question how can it possibly provide meaningful guidance regarding big questions?
Keep in mind: no book is more often thumped as authority for sexual do's and don't's in America. Come on. Give me a straight answer. Does the bible give any guidance on whether it is OK for a person to give himself or herself sexual pleasure? Truly, there's got to be some guidance on this issue somewhere in that huge book, right?
Erich,
If I have stated a specific teaching from scripture which apparently you have no clue where to find it.
1 Corinthians 6:12
12 "Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.
This is clear and sufficient for any common reader to understand. Do what you want, God will not judge you upon what you do but upon the character and habits that your response develops both in you and in those who agree with you concerning the benefits or purposes behind the activity.
If the goal is to surrender self-control, I seriously doubt most people see that the best choice. God gives us all leeway in response to personal experiences, He however would prefer that we eventually did something of greater value or purpose with our lives.
Most people I would hope do things that they believe are beneficial both for themselves and society, but many certainly can not say they are in charge of what they do if they only know of one way to respond to a specific stimulus.
If I state the words in a specific context you will certainly take them out of context as you have done with the initial statements of this blog.
If I use only terms that are Biblical and tautologies you will say I'm preaching.
I have not avoided the question. I have stated answers from both my perspective and a Biblical one. What more would you like?
Karl: Your answers seem quite vague to me. Are you on the record as concluding that according to the Bible it's OK to masturbate? What about as a general rule for people who have no sex partners? Does the Bible say THAT's OK? If so, cite chapter and verse, please.
Erich to Karl: "Give me a straight answer."
Don't hold your breath.
Karl, you apparently didn't get what Erich wrote about there not being an "e" in masturbation.
Let me see if I understand you.
You see "Doing No Harm" as a rule that can be violated simply by possessing a trait with which someone else is uncomfortable, yes? Your posts are so convoluted that I'm still not sure what your point has been, but if you seem to be saying that, for instance, gay marriage should not be allowed because this granting of rights to people whose sexual orientation makes some uncomfortable might allow them the comfort to, say, walk around in public holding hands or kiss on a park bench in full view of . . . anyone. Therefore their behavior has "done harm," in your world, so should not be encouraged, if not outlawed altogether. Is that it?
I remember a friend telling me a story that dropped my jaw, and your argument is reminiscent of it. This friend has a daughter who was born without a full arm; her left arm ends shortly past her elbow. She is otherwise "normal" – strong, beautiful and full of life, a playmate of my youngest. When she was about three, her mom took her to the local YMCA for swimming classes. She loved it. Fit right in, playing and splashing with the group. A classmate, however, had tantrums every time she came near the pool. She was terrified of water, and as it turns out, was also frightened by the missing appendage of my friend's kid.
What a great learning opportunity, right? Kids that age are so open and innocent – my friend's daughter was not at all shy and would happily have showed her arm to this child and explained that it was just the way she was born, etc., nothing scary. But no. The mother of said tantrum-thrower pulled my friend aside and asked her what she was thinking, putting her daughter in a class with "regular kids." She wasn't even kind about it – as if that were possible – she berated my friend for being so insensitive to the other children – "Can't you see she scares them?!" I was positively shaking with anger on their behalf when I heard this – really??? It was my friend's responsibility to shield a bigoted stranger from "harm?" I don't think so, lady.
Your post not only reminded me of that, but also shows you contradicting yourself. You say you try not to judge, yet you are giving the OK for others to judge. Why? I don't understand.
You write: "Just because two or three or four or any number of people have agreed that what they are involved in is not harming anyone else, their vantage point is not free and clear from causing harm/destruction to the perspectives/beliefs of others.
You do diservice to your own perspective by qualifying when sexual inclinations should or shouldn’t be kept in check. There are ample number of other people who would disagree with any or your moral stances as well. Some would see you as sticking your nose where it shouldn’t be as well."
First of all, the second paragraph is nonsense, because Erich clearly stated that the only instances that should be controlled are those in which someone is victimized. When no victim exists, your argument ceases to make any sense at all. That someone is offended does not a "victim" make, Karl. That's simply absurd.
So you state that you take two aspirin with your tall glass of water when you experience sexual tension. Not sure how that helps – but that's your choice.
That gives a fairly clear understanding of your stand on all things sexual – you advocate self-control, and seem to be saying that any/all sexual behavior can be kept under control (read: not engaged in) by good, God-fearing people.
That's fine. I disagree heartily, but I respect your viewpoint. For you. Control your lust, but know that if you give into it and forego the aspirin, nothing will fall off. Nor will the pits of hell open up and consume you. I promise.
For the sake of argument, let's say when we're talking about doing no harm, we're talking about exposing people to homosexuality. Because that, I believe, is your point.
Mark has explained this quite eloquently and very clearly. You continue to argue, but I'm not sure if it is because you are unable to glean meaning from his words, or if you just can't bear to admit your perspective might be wrong.
For my gay friends, the fact that you and your ilk are not comfortable with their orientation does not, in any way, mean that they are doing you harm by being true to themselves. Being exactly who they are, how God made them, in your vernacular, is not being either addictive to sex, or predatory. When no victim (self or other) exists, your argument ceases to make any sense at all.
If you are offended by two men, or two women, holding hands on the street or exhibiting PDA, the onus is on you, not them. Look away. Walk somewhere else. Better yet, lose your prejudices.
Dang! I'm arguing with Karl again . . . .
Mindy:
1. Please refrain from using the word "onus" around Karl.
2. Please note that I didn't specify whether the hypothetical masturbator exclaimed "Oh, God." Karl is free to assume either way.
3. In support of Mike's comment that masturbation is not harmful, and that it's even healthy, consider this WebMD article. In light of these medical conclusions, shouldn't high schoolers be encouraged to masturbate more, to lower the rate of teen pregnancy? Maybe those students would have an easier time focusing on their school work if they weren't made to feel ashamed of their own bodies by church leaders.
4. I realize that there are actually some adults in the U.S. who don't masturbate, who might find this conversation offensive. I apologize to all three of you.
Karl says:
"If the goal is to surrender self-control, I seriously doubt most people see that the best choice. God gives us all leeway in response to personal experiences, He however would prefer that we eventually did something of greater value or purpose with our lives.
Most people I would hope do things that they believe are beneficial both for themselves and society, but many certainly can not say they are in charge of what they do if they only know of one way to respond to a specific stimulus."
Again, the world of black and white, as described by Karl.
So do you really believe that because the spouse in Erich's example masturbated in his wife's absence, he only knows one way to respond to that specific stimulus?
I don't believe Erich posited that said spouse dropped trou in the office or on the subway, nor did he suggest that meetings were cancelled and children neglected in order to respond to the stimulus. I'm guessing this spouse controlled himself until an appropriate, and private, moment – showing that no, he did not, in fact, surrender self-control but rather exercised it, and ALSO enjoyed the release mechanism given to him by his very own Almighty.
I truly believe those who feel as you do harbor deep fear of their own inability to exercise self-control, should they allow themselves the least bit of freedom. You either give in and pleasure yourself willy-nilly every time the thought enters your head, or you abstain completely. So there.
Uhhh, no. That's just not how it works, Karl. Yours is the same mentality that insinuates gay men are also pedophiles. OMG – If they want other men, they must be crazy out-of-control sexual deviants who won't stop until they've taken little boys, too!!!
Bullshit, Karl. All of it.
Erich.
The classic statement on the subject is Genesis 38. Onan. But really the story of Onan is not about masturbation so much as coitus interruptis. Reading that chapter you get a real sense of the perfectly twisted code by which these guys lived—twisted, that is, by contemporary standards, and, apparently, even by some of their standards.
Other than that, the Bible doesn't seem to say much more on the subject, other than the obsessive concern over "seed."
We're basically back to property laws.
Erich – Karl is close, but no banana…
The verses he's looking for are:
1 Corinthians 6:18-20
In other words – masturbation is a sin against god, so don't do it.
I'm sorry I can't find the words you would like in the manner you want them.
Here are a few other translations.
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-12.htm
Here are a few other cross references.
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/10-23.htm
http://bible.cc/romans/14-19.htm
http://bible.cc/2_timothy/2-22.htm
http://bible.cc/1_thessalonians/4-4.htm
I hope this is clear. Were it not for our perverted imaginations and lustful sense of expectation, our bodies would not cause us anywhere near the trouble. It is our minds and hearts that need "treatment".
It's kind of like sitting a red light and constantly reving the engine waiting to burn rubber. Some call this living life to the fullest, others call it being mastered by your own lifestyle, instead of your lifestyle being in submission to you, and the will of God.
I'm careful not to say scripture prohibits masterbation, but I also refuse to except that illicit fantasy and repeated thought patterns have no part in our allowing an addictive way of thinking and living to take control of the body which renders us as being controlled by our habits and expectations.
Karl wrote: "Most people I would hope do things that they believe are beneficial both for themselves and society…"
Masturbation IS beneficial! Studies have shown that men who masturbate regularly during their twenties and thirties have far less incidence of prostate cancer in later life. That to me is a clear indication that God wants us to do it!
Karl: I suspect that I'm really made you uncomfortable with the masturbation example. Then consider this instead: Is it OK for a man who is engaged (but not yet married) to have sex with his fiancee while she is dressed up like his favorite Actress, Angelina Jolie, while he fantasizes that she actually IS Angelina Jolie. Please cite verse and line from the Bible in your answer.
Alternatively, please admit that 1) the Bible offers no consistent or meaningful guidance to modern humans regarding sexual morality, and 2) that conservatives should stop trying to cherry pick from the Bible in their attempts to meddle in other people's sex lives.
Fixed that for you!
*Adults are capable of reasoning, and are not offended by discussions outside their comfort-zone
Erich – I can't be bothered to go search out the related verse(s) but mental fantasies are generally considered to be adultery, beginning with the commandment (thou shalt not covet) and going on from there!
I guess everyone is breaking that particular commandment, then! (Apparently I was Hugh Jackman last night… hope I didn't scratch!)
Here is the crux of the issue.
Karl writes:—"If the goal is to surrender self-control, I seriously doubt most people see that the best choice. God gives us all leeway in response to personal experiences, He however would prefer that we eventually did something of greater value or purpose with our lives."
Either there is a fundamental misunderstanding here or Karl has revealed the basic issue with which he's dealing.
Self-control.
I direct you to a famous saying, John 15:13.
Laying down one's life for someone is the ultimate giving over of yourself. Self control might restrain you—this is surrender to the love of others.
When we make love, we surrender to another. That's the idea, anyway, and for my part the whole point. That joining is the closest we ever get to sharing essence with another human being. It is very much surrender. Self control shouldn't even enter into it.
Which is why Paul was so averse to it. He saw it as competition to the kind of surrender he thought should supercede it. I'm not talking here about what he may or may not have gleaned from what he thought god or Jesus wanted, I'm talking about someone who found something in his born again state that gave support to his own personal problems with commitment. Seeing Paul purely as a man and a proselyte allows me to indulge a little psychoanalysis. Paul didn't trust women because, probably, he wanted them too much, and he found this distracting from what he had decided was more important.
People who refrain from certain experiences out of fear of losing control NEVER learn to manage those impulses. They put them in a closet and hope the door stays shut. When the door pops open, as such doors are wont to do, they are utterly unprepared for the experience because, well, they have no experience.
Before you hasten to throw into this all manner of ill-advised activity people indulge as counter-example, consider that there are differences between activities that are life affirming and activities that are nihilistic. And alcoholic cannot imbibe alcohol, because the alcoholic has a completely different response to it than someone who is not. We learn these things over time, through experience. People who simply insist that NO ONE should drink alcohol is acting out of the false assumption that NO ONE can handle it.
But when it comes to sex…
In traditional Japanese culture, orgasm is characterized as the moment we are closest to heaven. That is not for them a euphemism. Nor, really, for me. When you look at the huge list of physiological and psychological benefits derived from sex, it really does become absurd to assert that self control is more important, especially when self control amounts to not ever doing it.
But the rejection of surrender to a lover, ever…that goes beyond mere self control.
In James Michener's novel "Hawaii" there is a scene in which Abner Hale, the Congregationalist missionary, breaks down before his wife, Jerusha, in misery over having realized that he may, once, have loved her more than he loved god. She matter-of-factly responds that if that's the kind of god he loves, she cannot share that with him.
First, I think making dividing lines like that is absurd—love is love, and the love of another is an expression of love of the divine.
Secondly, if such a love creates a misery in the soul over its direction and expression, then it's not really love, is it? It's an approximation. Perhaps a sham.
Because the essence of love is surrender.
Erich, Mindy, Mike, Hank, Tony C, et. al.
What I've said is no where near what I have been accused of and there have been insinuations and comments made that are your perogative but I can not agree with most of them.
I have said the Biblical writings concerning masterbation can only be inferred from other contexts.
Paul says anything is permissible in the sense that the activity is not who or what you are. It is not what you will be judged by either. What you are is the sum total of your volitional choices, not your physiological experiences.
I have said in so many words that God judges the thoughts and intents of the heart, not the behavior.
You could accidentally kill someone and this is greatly different from Murder 1.
You can also seek to malign and intimidate other people so that they are silenced from your need to further consider their point of view.
My own thoughts and intents are what lead me to repeated habitual behavior and they are also what prevent me from being free to consider alternate choices. When this happens it is what the Bible would call an addiction or being controlled by your own conditioned response.
The ultimate reference for all of this stuff comes from the words of Jesus when he was asked about adultery – presumably a private affair between consenting adults. His statement is of course one which probably everyone here will think is just unrealistic.
Matthew 5:27,28
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Conditioned animals have learned habitual behaviors. I'm not calling anyone here just an animal – I think you have more worth than that. But if you can't see how your thoughts, imaginations and intentions are the starting point for matters related to your choices – you really believe that you do not have a will of your own, but one that is governed strictly by your animalistic (humanistic as you try to make them) qualities.
If you keep on ignoring the spirit God has placed in you, then one day you will only be the sum total of your humanistic – yet animalistic choices. Many here are content with that.
Don't knock those who have higher ideals and values, or one day the only thing that will matter to humans is who has the strength and might to control the rest of humanity, and what their method of control will be.
Noted, Erich. Karl, you proved my point entirely. You fear that any "illicit" fantasies lead to a life of debauchery and sins against God. Which, as we've all agreed, is just fine – FOR YOU. If you fear that you will slide down that slippery slope, then best not top the rise, yes.
And of course, there are lots of folks out there for whom "illicit" behavior is part of a lifestyle I dare say most people would find unpalatable.
But those are personal choices. Far more people, I'm certain, enjoy active and fulfilling and even edgy fantasy and sexual lives and still live good, productive, meaningful lives – by anyone's standards.
Make your choices, and stay out of everyone else's bedrooms. Please.
Mark – your last comment really nailed the issue, IMO.
As for the health benefits of sex, consider this impressive list. If merely the HEALTH benefits of sex could come in a prescription medicine, it would deservingly be the most popular drug sold.
Karl writes:—"The ultimate reference for all of this stuff comes from the words of Jesus when he was asked about adultery – presumably a private affair between consenting adults. His statement is of course one which probably everyone here will think is just unrealistic."
Adultery is not a private affair between the participants, but a violation of a promise. But this is always held up as somehow referring to all circumstances of lust or sexual congress and it simply isn't true. Adultery was then and is now a very specific instance of breaking a vow—marriage. It says nothing about those in an unattached state.
I agree with you that people who have made promises to each other should not violate those promises. Everyone would be better off if everyone kept their word. But I go further and assert that before making such promises people need to understand themselves a whole lot better than most evidently do.
But when I was single and unattached, who I slept with was no one's business other than the person sleeping with me. Sex is not a promise. People who treat it as such misunderstand it and misuse it.
Looking at other people lustfully, though…yeah, I got quibbles with that. Fantasy is very much a part and parcel of a healthy sex life. Maybe he doesn't actually want to screw Hally Berry (or whoever) and maybe she would never sleep with Brad Pitt, but funneling the energy of the fantasy into the relationship you have can add a lot of joy.
Karl writes:—"Don’t knock those who have higher ideals and values, or one day the only thing that will matter to humans is who has the strength and might to control the rest of humanity, and what their method of control will be."
I presume you mean yourself?
It would appear to me that through history the only thing that has mattered most of the time is he who has the strength. We've been moving steadily away from that since at least the Enlightenment—which coincidentally was the time when it began to occur to those who set standards that everyone is worthy of consideration, that even a peasant has value.
Karl,
First, adultery is wrong because it victimizes the unsuspecting spouse. NOT a private act between two people, but an act that breaks a vow, an oath. Not the same as most other private acts we've been discussing.
Second, if I accused you of anything that is not true, please be specific and let me know what it is. You have an impressive history of circling around questions and never really answering, and you've done it again here. I even said clearly at one point – "Correct me if I'm wrong," and you did not.
Third, I am deeply offended by the insinuation that I, because I don't believe in your lord and savior, I must not have values and ideals any higher than my "animalistic" tendencies. Once again, the Christian "holier-than-thou" attitude that turns so many away from organized religion.