Oh ya. I looooove that movie. Thanks for the laugh!

Thanks for the comment.

What do I think of this post? I currently think it's long and detailed and going to be hard for me to read at work (which is where I have internet access). I'll probably print it out, read it at length later this week, discuss it with my family, do some Scripture digging, and decide what I think later. You do well to start with a Monty Python sketch.

I don't give out two eProps by default like so many xangans do, so don't take it as a slight. Take it as "wow, she gave me a whole eProp!"

Have a great day!

im going to have to agree with the previous comment.

but already i can think up a lot of support on which the bible says to love wife//husband without creating babies...i think the whole Song of Songs chapter proves that.

But as a christian I am for sex just for fun and love, and I do agree with your point on ejaculation and lust to some degree. Look for more to come. Thanks for the invite to discussion

A'

ps. monty python forever

A few thoughts:

1) I believe that attraction, that arousal, occurs involuntarily as a natural biological reaction. Lust, on the other hand, I define as a deliberate and conscious dwelling on arousal. I can get aroused when a hot woman walks past me in the grocery store, and that isn't wrong--I had no choice in the matter. I have a choice, though, as to whether I try to see down her blouse or stare at her when she's not looking--that is lust. (I think it was Martin Luther who said that I cannot keep the birds from flying over my head but I can keep them from making a nest in my hair.) Jesus didn't say whoever lusts after a woman, he said whoever looks at a woman to lust after her: he implies intent.

Even the Catholics (who hold many of the spilling-sperm-is-evil stances that you discuss) hold that nocturnal emissions are beyond a man's control and therefore are no fault of his. They hold that masturbation is sinful because it is done willfully--there was intent involved.

2) I think the key to the Genesis 38 passage is "But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his." He was deliberately trying to circumvent the Jewish practice of raising an heir for your dead brother. The context implies that that, not just the seed-spilling, was what was wicked in Yahweh's eyes. After all, Levitical law says nothing about seed-spilling elsewhere except to say that a man who has spilled semen on himself is unclean until he has washed. If all wasted semen was an offense to the Jewish god, certainly such a thing would have been stated explicitly in the Levitical law, along with other specific offenses such as eating a calf boiled in its mother's milk or wearing clothing made of linen/wool blend.

This interpretation of that passage puts me, a modern Christian, in conflict with minor teachings of some early Christians, yes. But that's nothing new--they used the Septuagint and I use the Masoretic, they didn't use crosses to symbolize their faith and I do, they placed heavy emphasis on celibacy and modern Christians place less on celibacy and more on abstinence (because we're less convinced that the end of the world is tomorrow).

3) The generally accepted interpretation of Jesus' passage referring to "eunuchs for the kingdom" is to the celibate (monks, nuns, and others who give up the possiblity for sex in order to serve God without distraction). This would be consistent with Jesus' usual use of hyperbole (i.e. plucking out eyes and removing mountains).

Those are my first reactions. I'll have to reread this later and see what else occurs to me. Nice, thorough examination of the subject.

3)

Thanks for the invite to comment.  (You should know that as I sit here, I am wearing my "Killer Rabbit-Run Away, Run Away" sweatshirt.....).

The spilling of Onan's seed, I believe, comes very close to ChrisRusso's explanation.  The intent (as the story was told) was to avoid the responsibility of familial duty as per his sister in law.  Why?  Quite possibly to avoid losing property rights/wife rights.

It is interesting to note that in the time of Daniel DeFoe (of Robinson Crusoe fame), England was having the same kind of spiritual upheaval as we are experiencing now in the US.  Religious individuals (fanatics?) were attempting to control the sexual lives of everyone, albeit doing it while proposing stiff penalties for prostitutes and homosexuals.  The regulations they proposed, when seen under the clear light of the law, intended to make any sexual behavior, in or out of marriage, contingent on the intent of procreation for it to be legal.

Speaking here as a woman, and one who has born the pain of childbirth, for women to engage in sexual activity, there must be more than procreation.  Women are emotive creatures and it is in the sharing of emotion that bonds of family are set.  For sexual expression to become little more than a physical act akin to passing urine or feces (ie, done only when necessary) is, I believe contrary to what God had in mind for humans.

Whether or not humanity likes the idea, "nature" has a great deal of waste to it.  Scorpions, for example have almost 50 offspring, but less than 5 will live to adulthood, with the parent eating some of them, and the rest falling to predators. 

Even in the human sphere, not every egg will be fertilized, since the woman has hundreds of them.  Sperm is dispensed in a huge number because only one of them will actually be used for its intended purpose.  Even when the sperm does manage to fertilize the egg, there is no continuation of the development of the embryo unless the embryo attaches itself to the uterine wall.  Thus, even in human procreation, there is an enormous amount of waste.

This discussion reminds me of so many others--rather than focus on the message of God and His redeeming grace through Christ, the discussion attempts to muddy the waters and divert both time and attention away from the responsibility of Christians-to love and care for others.

If Onan is guilty of spilling his seed and not taking care of the business that God put before him, then we, when we focus on the minutae of the Bible and not of the spirit of what the business is God has put before us, then we too are guilty of disobedience.  The Jews of the OT disrupted the work of God and His people by the focus of trying to adhere to hundreds of laws rather than on the spirit of what God wanted.  Those who fuss and fume over things that, in the long run, are designed to trip people up rather than free them to live in love and charity and be demonstrative to the world of God and His love, are guilty of putting a millstone around the necks of those who struggle to believe.

That last bit is one of the big problems: people do struggle to believe.

They should not. It is sad.

They feel guilty for not believing.

They should not.

Almost all of the book of Genesis is demonstrably myth/ legend/ folk lore:

http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/OTChrono.html

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision if Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts. 2002. Touchstone.

People are trapped in lies, just like the Greeks and the Romans, owing their allegiance to false religions that can be proven false if only people would read.

Yes, I agonize over not having Latin in my life right now, I very much enjoy Ancient Greek... make that koine... all that ancient stuff, it's my favorite.

And yes, mission trip. Biggest cities in every nation, including the most prosperous ones, have some of the worst inner city problems. It's a service trip, the church that's sending us is getting together with local churches in the cities their teams will be. Just serving. Being witnesses primarily through our actions. It's my first, and I'm excited, and I'm anxious, and so I was asking for prayer requests.

So. Mission trip makes my faith known, right? Though I'd have done that on my own after seeing this post... I won't address every question. Just one thing... as far as the whole "lust will happen one way or another" thing goes... maybe that's true. Once upon a time, I thought there were lots of people who didn't always have physical pleasure close to the surface of their thoughts. Past several years I've come see very little evidence of that. It seems there are very few who have generally pure actions... and it's even harder to control your thougths. Oh, well. Doesn't matter.
If you grew up in the church, you probably heard this idea before, but whatever: Lust/adultery, lying, hate/murder, envy/coveting, et cetera, it's all going to happen. Everyone's going to commit them. There's nothing anyone can do to prevent themselves from ever doing wrong. Just because we can't or won't inhibit our actions, doesn't absolve us. It doesn't make those actions called sins right. If there's a God (a supreme being, perfect in every way, including morally--call Him what you wish) who says they're wrong, then those things are wrong... and I'm not arguing in this comment that there is a God, I'm arguing a different point on the assumption that there is. Christianity isn't people saying, hey, we're perfect and we'll get rewarded for it; come join us and end your lust if you want the prize too! Christianity is this: I'm not perfect. I'm never going to be. No person ever will be. But it's okay, because instead of eternal damnation, we can choose the opposite. But it's not free for everyone. It's conditional. Not on your actions, but on your beliefs. Don't agree? Well, then, what do you think?

I can respect the discussion in this and I agree overpopulation is a problem. But tying religious doctrine and philosophy to what is a practical problem is what helps it to get murky. So the solution on a practical mindset is pull the religion out of it...

alphalover -

I think you are right about the Song of Songs. I always found it strange that there were Christians out there trying to saying that it was a symbolic work, and allegory of Christ and the Church. Of course, not all Christians take it that way, or even know that it ever was read that way, or even know that it exists. Anyway, you're right about it!

It seems to me that some of Paul's talk in 1 Corinthians could be taken that way too. 1 Cor 7:5 talks about not depriving one another of sex. ... although Paul's real wish is that everyone would be celibate.

He does say also that spouses may do without sex for awhile in order to devote themselves to prayer. I wonder why sex hinders people from praying?? I wonder if he thinks it makes them impure for a time, as in the Mosaic Law??

im going to have to agree with citta eterna on this one

as far as the old testament goes, its filled with strict rules, most of them for the good of humanity but some of them as well made for the time period they were created in, one might liken them to guidelines if that terms isn't too loose or irreverent. However, the one of the main purposes of the new testament is to give hope. For all those who know they aren't perfect, but want to lead that better life, that moral life, who hold belief in God (or whatever you want to call him/her) and his principles as their highest maxim, it gives the hope and the way to do that. By Jesus Christ. Lust will always happen, but then again as previously stated, you don't have to act on it.

On another point I have to disagree with, is the idea posed that pratical problems can only be solved by taking religion out of the solution. One would hope that in a perfect world, or even a slightly sane one, the morals and ideas found in those who truly practice and seek to understand their religion would offer the common sense and correctness to the problem produced. But then again, I'd have to hope that common sense is not dependent upon religion. I guess it's something to ponder over.

As I continue reading this entry and the ensuing discussion, I wonder why you invited me specifically to it, having never visited my xanga before that I know of. Are you genuinely asking my opinion because you care what I, sonnetjoy, think? Are you asking my opinion because you want to change what I think? Have you already made up your mind on lust and whether the Bible has authority to speak on the subject, or are you seeking opinions to continue in shaping your own? (These are earnest, not rhetorical, questions.)

I'm not by nature a debater - I tend to observe the arguments, study them, mull over them, discuss them with intelligent folks I know personally. I don't come to decisions like these quickly, and I don't normally enter into debates. If I knew your invitation's intent, I would better know how to shape my answer.

Aside: You're reading Aristophanes in the Greek? That's laudable, to say the least. Aristophanes is one of my favorite playwrights hands-down, modern, ancient, or otherwise. Greek is on the short list of languages for me to learn, right after I have a better mastery of Polish, which is coming along nicely. I'm thinking about beginning an informal study of Greek this summer. What texts are you using? How much Greek do you have under your belt? Ancient, koine, modern?

Thanks for checking my site and reading it.

To SonnetJoy:

Hey, sorry it took so long to reply. School is so busy.

Why I invited you? - I was hopping from certain blog-rings, and just thought I’d see if you were interested. I did not know your xanga before. I don't remember how I ended up on yours.

“Are you genuinely asking my opinion because you care what I think?”
- yes.

“Are you asking my opinion because you want to change what I think?”
– maybe; depends on what you think.

“Have you already made up your mind on lust and whether the Bible has authority to speak on the subject, or are you seeking opinions to continue in shaping your own?”
– I have done lots of research on the Bible and ancient history, for many years; so I do have some knowledge as well as opinions. I find that lots of people don’t actually read the Bible thoroughly or with any analytical skills or serious research. I enjoy discussing Biblical topics to increase awareness. I do think many people have false ideas about the Bible, and when those surface, I sometimes point these out.

“I don't normally enter into debates.”
– You are welcome merely to observe, if it so pleases you, and if you don’t like something, you can say so, or not. No problems.

What texts are you using?
– For Aristophanes, the Loeb Classical Library text for Greek; Jeffrey Henderson's translation for English. For beginning Greek, I learned from Cynthia Shelmerdine’s recent text, and she actually taught our class from the pre-published copy.

How much Greek do you have under your belt?
– This is my 4th year to study Greek formally, but my first year to take graduate classes in it.

Ancient, koine, modern?
- Ancient and koine. No (very little) modern.

I became interested in ancient history because of my Christian roots. I grew up a believer. I wanted to be a Christian minister from age 17 on, but I also wanted to understand all of world history and the Bible and religions (everything really). The study of the Bible and history led me to reject many of the beliefs that I grew up with and to realize that although my parents did the best they knew to do, they didn’t really know much – nor did the pastors and preachers I grew up listening to. Most simply read the Bible as a daily devotional, looking for passages about love or faith and such, skipping historical elements and only reading the Old Testament through the filter of the New Testament.

I hope you have the opportunity to pursue your interest in Greek.

P.S. Just b/c you're an Aristophanes fan, I thought I'd mention that I'm also acting in an Aristophanes play this spring - "Ploutos" (Wealth/Money) [Douglass Parker's translation, a former, very old professor of mine, recently retired].

It turns out that I hurt my back and can’t go to work today – so ironically I’m free to stay home and address this post at length. How about that, eh?    Many questions which require a great deal of detail to address appropriately. I’ll contribute what I can. Overall, though, allow me to express what I believe to be the most important truth: that anyone can be a Christian and saved if he believes with his heart and confesses with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead. Other issues may be important – even very important – but ultimately they are peripheral to this truth. Many Christians go awry by treating secondary and tertiary issues as though they are salvation issues. In this I echo brokenbindings2.   Recommended Resources:   http://www.themarriagebed.com   I have found to be thoughtful, Biblically-based, and informative. I haven’t read an article on it that I’ve had serious issues with. Some of the presentation is painfully cheesy (The “Got Jesus? Please Donate!” logo comes to mind) but I’ve found the information to be sound. Some of the articles haven’t been updated since 2005, so information about what contraceptives are available where is a little dated.   When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. I recommend this as a general resource. The intended audience is interested laymen (hence the “popular”) and the scope, while quite good, is far from all inclusive of every Biblical difficulty (for example, none of the verses cited in this post were addressed). But if you are interested in addressing specific difficulties or inconsistancies in Scripture, this book does relatively well. There’s a companion book called When Skeptics Ask.   ~~~~~~  I agree whole-heartedly with everything ChrisRusso says in his response; I would add, however, to his response to  Matthew 9:12 that the passage also says “He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." Christians are specifically told that we are free to not choose the path of celibacy. If a person is not able to accept this, he doesn’t have to. (I must say that I fall into that category. If I had a scrotum, I’d want to keep it.)   ~~~~~~ “Is it immoral for a man to have sex with his wife just for fun, even once, and not try for a child every time he has sex?” I think that the answer “NO” to this is so obvious that it’s almost painful to have to explain. The entire Song of Solomon, for example, is clearly about love and marriage and sexual pleasure (despite lingering attempts left over from medieval times to make it solely an allegory about Christ’s love for the Church. I think it functions fine as a allegory – but the allegory works because we understand passionate love between human lovers and beloveds). My husband and I would love each other poorly indeed if we did not address one another’s sexual needs, which are clearly not merely physical.

Analogy: We don’t eat merely to satisfy hunger; ideally, we dine to satisfy multiple desires – for conversation and community, to enjoy a variety of colors, scents, textures, tastes. Throwing my husband a granola bar is not nearly as loving as if I took the time to shop, creatively cook a new dish  or thoughtfully provide a favorite, and spent the time to eat with my husband. As much as possible, that’s what I do. Biblically, I think the Song of Solomon holds up romantic love (and the sex that goes with it) as beautiful, desirable, and holy.  That many Christians throughout time have misunderstood what chaste sexuality is about is, I believe, a special glee of Satan’s, and the horrible ramifications continue in bedrooms and hearts around the world. Am I sad for these folks? Hell, yes. ~~~~~
“Is it immoral to use a condom or other contraceptives?  “ This question is very similar to the one above. I believe that contraceptives designed to prevent fertilization is fine. One reason to engage in abstinence, after all, is to prevent fertilization. Contraceptives that interfere with a fertilized egg, however, is tantamount to abortion. I object to them strongly for the same reasons I object to abortion. ~~~~~~
"Is it wrong to masturbate?" That teaching that masturbation is wrong is so common in Christianity throughout time that I’m not sure why anyone might think you are “making stuff up.” Part of why many Christians think masturbation is wrong is tied up in the erronenous conclusions about the passage regarding Onan spilling his seed. That aside, some Christians think masturbation is wrong because it’s a mimic of the sex act, which ideally should be a husband and wife satisfying one another’s desires. Masturbation, according to this thought, is wrong because it is selfish and a mockery of actual sex. www.themarriagebed.com has a lengthy consideration of the topic of masturbation, and you might be surprised at what they have to say. There’s at least five separate pages dealing with the topic, which is also hit upon in various ways in other articles on the site. From the column on the left-hand side: Go to Bible, Scriptural Applications, Masturbation. ~~~~~~ “If humans prosper on the planet, population will continue to grow and resources diminish.  IF in the future (some would say it is here) there are too many people and not enough resources, will it not become foolish, cruel, and BAD for a family to have more than 1 or 2 children?”   There’s the old joke that the only command God ever gave humanity that we’ve obeyed fully is to “be fruitful and multiply.” I think it’s safe to say we’ve more than satisfied that command. Although I object to governments intervening in my procreative decisions (the next step is telling me when I can poop), I think smaller families are a very wise idea and I fully support anyone’s decision to have smaller families, barring abortion. There are so many unloved children waiting for adoption – couples desiring to raise large families should scoop up these poor abandoneds rather than turn to years of painful, expensive, and often heart-breaking fertility treatments.

~~~~~~~
“ But, sad to say, they are psychologically dependent on it and are unable to question it without deep anguish from cognitive dissonance.”
Dependent on God? You better believe it, in the same way that I’m dependent on light and heat and oxygen. May you never have to watch an aneroxic, day after day, try to deny that her very life is dependent on food. I feel as though I am watching the same thing in the spiritual realm, multiplied by hundreds of people I know. ~~~~~~
“I know I sound harsh, but I love them, and I want to see them free from their old chains.” It’s strange – I could have written that very sentence, but from the opposite side of the spectrum. ~~~~~~
Embedded throughout this post is language which suggests you do not believe that the words of Jesus are in the NT. (“One ancient writer depicts Jesus as saying,” and “Guess what else Jesus supposedly said” for example.) Have you written a post that addresses that? If so, could you point me to it?

Ahhh, my careful formatting gone to seed!

Very entertaining. I do love Monty Python.

Your criticism of the "every sperm is sacred" belief is just. However, even though this position is advocated by Christians and Catholics, it just isn't biblical.

Firstly, in the Genesis story of Judah and Tamar, God strickes Onan not because he spilled his sperm, but because he refused to provide his dead brother with an heir. As you probably know, in ancient Israel it was custom that when a man died, his brother would marry that man's wife and produce offspring. Yahweh killed Onan for being unwilling to do this.

Secondly, lust is not a biological reaction, if you use the biblical definition of lust. Lust is not merely thinking about sex, because that is a biological reaction that is necessary for the survival of the species. As ChrisRusso said before me, "Lust, on the other hand, I define as a deliberate and conscious dwelling on arousal. I can get aroused when a hot woman walks past me in the grocery store, and that isn't wrong--I had no choice in the matter. I have a choice, though, as to whether I try to see down her blouse or stare at her when she's not looking--that is lust."

As to masturbation versus nocturnal emissions, the church has generally agreed that the first is a sin and the second is not. The difference lies in intent. The two actions are themselves the same, however one is a willing perversion of sex whereas the other is a natural automatic action.

Finally as to birth control, the historical church has been for the most part, against it. I disagree and so do most modern Christians. The old view of sex was that its purpose was solely for procreation. However today we know of many other benefits of sex: its tendency to unite a couple, its psychological benefits, the pleasure it gives. These are secondary purposes, but they are true purposes of sex nonetheless. If we only do something to fulfill its primary purpose, then every time we eat for pleasure alone it is a sin. I accept that eating alone is not immoral so long as it does not develop into gluttony; thus, I accept that sex for pleasure alone is not immoral.
***
You make a parallel between Christianity and the ignorant Greek paganism of the past. I don't think this is just. You say: "They misunderstood and ridiculed science and philosophy, feeling threatened by it." Christianity doesn't ridicule science or philosophy, it embraces them. Some people who claim to be Christians on the other hand....

SocraticClub writes: "As you probably know, in ancient Israel it was custom that when a man died, his brother would marry that man's wife and produce offspring. Yahweh killed Onan for being unwilling to do this."

Yes, such was ancient morality, theistic morality, and you admit it right?

Do you also admit that you believe that this same Yahweh has more recently decided it is no longer immoral for brothers-in-law to decide NOT to impregnate the wives of dead brother?

What you believe he once killed a man for, you no longer consider to be a "sin." You think it is fine for theistic morality to change over time, but you hypocritically attack non-theistic morality for being subject to change/interpretation/etc.?

IF you think Yahweh killed the man for breaking a changeable rule, do you think Yahweh still behaves the same way? I'm guessing not.

[and this is all aside from the fact that these stories in Genesis are not history, but mythology [http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/OTChrono.html

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. 2002. Touchstone. ]

--------

You wrote "The old view of sex was that its purpose was solely for procreation. However today we know of many other benefits of sex: its tendency to unite a couple, its psychological benefits, the pleasure it gives."

Another admission that theistic morality is subject to change. Theistic morals are not "absolute."

I decided to check the Greek to clarify some things. Interesting.

In the Greek, Matthew 5:28 says, [using English spelling]

“ego de humin hoti pas ho blepon gynaika pros to epithumesai hede emoikheusen auten en tei kardia autou.”

-- epithumesai < epithumeo – can mean “to set one’s heart upon, for one’s heart to yearn for, to lust after, desire, (Old English ‘covet’)”
--epithumia – desire, yearning, longing, passion
--blepo – to look at
--pros – toward, tending toward, inclined toward, leading to, in view of
--gynaika < gyne – woman, wife/spouse as opposed to parthenos (young maiden)

possible translations:
1.“But I [say] to you that every man looking at a married woman with a view to setting his heart upon her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
2.“But I [say] to you that every man looking at a woman with a view to setting his heart upon her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
3.“But I [say] to you that every man looking at a married woman tending to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
4.“But I [say] to you that every man looking at a woman tending to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

-----

I am inclined to think that #1 or #3 is the most accurate translation, judging from the Greek and from historical and literary context, because it echoes the Mosaic commandments, which are the topic for the chapter. “Epithumesai” is the same word used in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of Jewish scripture used by the writers of the New Testament) for Exodus 20:17:

“You will not desire (or, set your heart upon) your neighbor’s woman (wife); you will not desire your neighbor’s house, nor his field, nor his man-slave, nor his female-slave, nor his ox, nor his yoke animal, nor all his flock/herd, nor as many things as belong to your neighbor.” [My translation from the Septuagint Greek]

IF #1 is the intent of the passage, the consequence for those Christians wishing to obey the old writings would be that the message concerns married women and not young, unmarried women. So, you needed be so afraid when you feel that desire for a single woman welling up inside you. Just make sure not to desire another man’s property; that should be easier, right? Even if you object to the ancient morality that considered a woman to be the property of a man, you can still keep the rule, right?

IF #4 is the intent of the passage, Christian men hoping to “live by the letter” are in most cases doomed, because they do not choose when they feel desire for a woman; it simply (and subtly) happens.