|
|
Post by Steve on May 2, 2007 3:00:33 GMT -7
Is it sin to lust and masturbate to your wife? My only input is to consider asking yourself different questions: - Does this behavior glorify God? - Does it make me more Christ-like? - Does it lead me into a more deeper relationship with God? What do you think? I would be interested in reading your reflections! All the best, Steve |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2007 4:26:18 GMT -7
I believe that the answer to all of your questions is no. My H told me that although he doesn't agree with me, he has stopped M altogether so that we can both have this time (separation) as a sexual fast. He's having a tough time, however, because he has never NOT had a release whenever he wanted. I just pray for God to keep him strong and not let Satan weasel his way into my H mind and put images there that he is weakened by. I don't think he has ever gone more than maybe a week or two without some sort of release since he lost his virginity so I understand how this can be very difficult for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on May 2, 2007 5:08:31 GMT -7
Oh, oh, oh ... I did not realize that you were the female spouse who typed this message. I think I am on the "same page" as you now!
Regarding the challenges your husband is likely facing with stopping masturbation and seeking purity, I am curious: Is your husband involved in any kind of accountability? Does he go to a group regularly that is focused on sexual purity issues? To be honest, I have not seen many men get truly free of this until they enter into such contexts.
Also, let me add just one more thought.
Red light! Red light! The fact that he is doing this for reasons other than the fact that it hurts his relationship with God (if he even has one) is concerning. In my experience, I've found brokeness and humility are the two absolutes needed for a sex addicted man to allow God to really transform his life. Let me put it another way that has been a recent theme in my personal recovery and the work I do with others.
There are two attitudes:
THIS WORKS: As a empty person who desperately needs God's help, I will do whatever it takes to get free of my addiction. (Or I will face and go through whatever healing issues that are necessary to get free of this.)
THIS DOESN'T WORK: What can I get away with not doing and still have acceptable results with staying away from my addiction? (Or How can I "get by?")
May I ask: Based on your husband behaviors (not words; words are cheap), is your husband's mindset in the first or the second category?
I apologize if I rambled, lectured or gave unwarranted advice. These were just some things on my heart as I read your post. Feel free to comment, reflect or ask questions as you feel comfortable.
All the best,
Steve
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2007 19:40:53 GMT -7
[user=1245]HopelesslyDesperate[/user] wrote
Hi HopelesslyDesperate,
This thread you opened brings to my mind some "definition of terms" which I have struggled with - and it seems my wife has had a hard time understanding how I have understood the famous verse where Jesus talks about "LUST". Actually I think there are many terms that sometimes mean different things to different people and this "failure to communicate" I think is most likely one of the causes of so much of our relational pain.
I think I am may be able to identify some with what your husband may have felt (I see the dates of these posts are awhile back now). From your comments, I expect you have felt the same kind of pain my wife has felt.
I don't want to try here to defend where your husband may be coming from (actually I don't even know if he would resonate with what I am about to say) - perhaps I mainly want to say some of this in hopes of hearing how others here may respond. So please don't consider what I am saying as being in any way callous of your hurt - I think this post is probably more about my struggles (and probably rationalizations) rather than necessarily about your specific situation.
As I read your words (the excerpts I put in the quote box above) - I could be wrong, but I get the impression that you may be somewhat ambivalent as to whether the pictures he looks at were "just pictures" or were they more, do you think maybe they are "my body"?
Maybe the most important thing is what HE thinks those pictures are.
Of course I don't how he views those pictures - but I can tell you how I have viewed pictures - not so much of my wife, instead types like of the playboy-centerfold variety.
For years, I personally considered non-lurid photographs of women's bodies as "just pictures" -- and of equal significance -- I considered such images as a generic example of the beauty of the female form.
On the other hand -- ever since the time I first told my wife about how I have a hard time keeping away from viewing such photographs -- I think she has been of the opinion that viewing a photograph of a (any) woman has somehow established a connection between myself and the body of the woman who posed for the photograph. (Perhaps this, along with Jesus' famous statement, helps to explain why some people feel a man is guilty of adultery even when he has "only" looked at - and enjoyed - a photograph of a woman who is not his wife).
......
( To try to explain what I mean when I use the words "generic example", I'll compare with some aspects of the way I look at a landscape type of painting of ... say a mountain in Colorado. The principle differences between the landscape and the way I view a nude photograph are (of course) the nude invokes pleasurable sexual feelings, and also I consider a woman's body much more beautiful than any mountain (but I'd say mountain views are probably next on my list, hence this analogy) -- the similarity is where the concept of "generic example" comes in - I'm not really interested about which SPECIFIC mountain inspired the painting, rather I simply enjoy seeing the beauty of "mountain" in general. Perhaps this concept, in one way, may be roughly analogous to Plato's "ideal" - though it's not like I consider a particular mountain - or a particular woman's image to be more "ideal" than another ... rather I have just enjoyed the beauty of the forms God made (in either case), without any kind of specific unique "relationship" entering into the "picture" - in fact, in the case of the nude photos, I intentionally trained myself to keep any "personal relationship aspect away from entering my mind at all. You will see as I continue, that when I trained myself not to think of any specific woman being associated with such photos, I thought I was doing that in order to stay away from "sin". (Later as I became married I learned God has made many women so they associate sexual enjoyment in a very different different way - that is, they believe to avoid sin, a specific and very "personal relationship" needs to be present when enjoying sexual feelings).
.....
I want to explain something concerning how I viewed the definition of the key word "LUST" .... When I was very young (around 6 years old), a pubescent girl who lived nearby would disrobe before me on a regular basis. I don't remember a lot of specifics about those times, other than that I enjoyed and encouraged it. When these episodes were happening I don't remember thinking about anything in relation to "good" or "bad". However, as I grew older (btw - I am a pastor's son), I began to get the impression that perhaps some folks think "LUST" is present any time a person is enjoying anything related to sexual feelings.
So later, I learned about the famous saying of Jesus about Lust and how it is linked to adultery. I was confused initially, because I also learned something to the effect that enjoying sexual feelings is supposed to be OK for a husband and wife together "personally" --- so I figured "LUST" must not be quite as simply defined as just enjoying sexual feelings.
Since Jesus used the word "Adultery" in that sentence, I tried to understand what that word means, and eventually I learned it usually involved a person willingly enjoying sexual feelings aroused by a person with whom they have not entered into a lifetime commitment through marriage. Now in another verse very close by the one where Jesus made that famous statement about lust, he also talked about how being angry can be like killing someone -- so (from that) I reasoned how the intent of the heart must be factoring into what Jesus meant by lust and adultery (in a similar manner as anger and murder).
When I was about 8 - I found a bunch of Playboy type magazines that had been blowing around out in the desert where I played across the street from where we lived on the outskirts of Tucson. At this point I had begun to link the idea of "bad" with sexuality to some extent, so I was faced with a real predicament ... On the one hand --- my body very much enjoyed the feeling associated with seeing those photographs -- but on the other hand, I knew many of the people I loved very dearly would likely consider me to be "LUSTing" if I willingly looked and enjoyed.
Here is what I did --- I decided I would need to consider those photographs to be simply representative of the way the body of my wife would one day appear. I couldn't seem to make myself simply "stay away" from those kinds of photos, but I knew if I continued to look - I would have to be very careful about the desires of my heart and what my mind thought about. I figured if I were to desire specifically to be with a specific woman (who posed for the photograph), and hence connect in my mind those photographs with a real person for instance by fantasizing about some sexual interaction specifically between myself and "her" - since she who was not my wife - then I knew that type of desire and mind process would in fact qualify as what I considered to be the definition which I thought Jesus must have meant when he used the word "LUST".
So basically, here is what I ended up with in later life after I got married. When I am with my wife I strive to "see" her not as a generic female (which I had trained myself to do with the photos before marriage), but rather as the specific and very wonderfully unique woman God designed especially so we can enjoy a "personal relationship". So - once I married, there became two ways I could enjoy sexual feelings - the one way I learned throughout young boyhood and extending on till marriage (we married at age 18 and have now been married over 30 years) - and the other (much better) way through personal involvement with the very "real" specific woman who was/is my wife.
In retrospect I wish I had not been so sexually oriented (starting at age 6). I understand that personal involvement is what God intends - but has always been very tempting to go back to the "easy" way to find a sexual release - because those images don't expect me to be a decent person. For me, (and I suspect there are many differences unique to each person), by teaching my mind to "go blank" when looking at nude photos - that activity became associated with an easy way to get some relief from a racing mind and stress. Nobody realized it in my early years, however in recent years I've been diagnosed as being bi-polar and I also have been plagued with various mental/emotional "issues". Sometimes I wonder if my strange rationalization techniques may have contributed to my mental/emotional "issues".
Well, now I realize the length of this post became too long a long time ago.
I'm sorry for getting so graphically specific.
I suppose there is a lot more that could be said about our long hard journey to arriving at a better marriage after I first told my wife about "my problem" - I guess if anyone is interested, I could continue in another post.
-Dennis
|
|
|
|
Post by Tears4Us on Jul 10, 2007 7:22:19 GMT -7
I have been in prayer for a few days in how to go about replying to this post or even if I should, after much prayer and thought I have chosen to reply.
without giving a long drawn out post. Dennis I want to ask you this....
Where in the bible did Jesus say "LUST' was okay. What a husband and his wife shares is intimacy there is a huge difference. This is what Jesus said
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5:27-28
Here you are missing a key word, and that word is looketh. When you look at a women "generic" or not and lust it is sin, it does not say it is like committing adultery, it says you have committed adultery. Maybe this is why when we are women find out that our husbands have been viewing porn we feel like we have been cheated on, why? because we have been. Pure and simple. By the way there is no such thing as "generic" women. They are real, they are someone's daughter, mother, wife or sister. Just because they are in a photo airbrush and computer enhanced does not mean that they are not real. The feelings you get from the photos are real so are the women. Maybe it is time to rethink what you were thinking at the age of eight.
I do not mean to sound harsh, but we as sinners always try to find away to justify our sin even at the expense of twisting scripture to say something it does not. I asked my husband once "Are you upset that you hurt me, or you upset that you got caught and God showing you the truth hurts because your flesh wants to continue in the sin." He was honest and told me his flesh wanted to continue, so he went on the scripture search to prove to me that it was okay and I set out to show him how he was taking God's word out of context. God won.
Do not be deceived my friend, when Jesus said if you look at a women and have sexual desires you are committing adultery. Where do those that commit adultery go? Lust of the eye is not of God.
For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1 John 2:16
I will be more then happy to go over the scriptures with you, I am sure there are many here that will also be a light, so if you would like to start a thread on the subject feel free to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 23:13:12 GMT -7
If you had an innocent heart, you wouldnt even think of your wife as a sexual tool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 11:36:57 GMT -7
[user=8156] Lilly[/user] wrote: Hi Lilly,
I assume you may have been meaning me when saying "you".
My post in this thread started off saying something about how different people can understand the same word to mean different things. When you used the word "tool", I'm not really sure what specificly you meant.
I feel bad about writing so much in this thread - actually I realized (when it was too late to remove my post) I should have started a new one.
Lilly, I confess I have not read many of your other posts (and I also doubt if I took the time to read other posts by HopelesslyDesperate -- and I'm especially sorry about that now) . I don't know if you have read many of my other posts - maybe they might help you to see a little more clearly why I wrote what I did.
I have a lot I want to say about the subject that comes to my mind when I hear the word "tool" used as perhaps you were meaning. I don't think this thread is the best venue, so my plan is to open another (that is if I am not asked to go to some seminary type of board, after this post).
I'm thinking the new thread's content may be something starting along lines which may come to your mind if you click on the first link below and then compare what you have read with any of the other Bible translation links -- where the same passage is rendered via the use of various different words (/meanings?) :
.................................
1 Corinthians 7:1-9 (The Message)Which of these "translations?" is more accurate? - and what does the answer to that accuracy question say about how I should interpret scripture? ...
For instance:
-- is the Bible like an "Owner's manual"? , can it's wording be improved to fit different times and places? --Does God give his people more insight into His true intent as time progresses, and if so, does that have anything to do with whether His words (in the Bible) are cast in stone?
1 Corinthians 7:1-9 (King James Version)(note: I was originally influenced - back when I was age 8 - by the wording of the King James Version .... now however, I think I am being told the Bible means (though I'm not yet certain if I'm completely convinced) something more along the lines of what we read in The Message "recapture" (commentary?).
...
1 Corinthians 7:1-9 (Young's Literal Translation)
1 Corinthians 7:1-9 (English Standard Version)
.................................
-Dennis
Btw: Please pray for me - that God will help me understand appropriately about Himself and His word...
It may take me some time to get the new thread started, because this whole subject is one that has caused me great mental and emotional anguish... I want to believe the Bible gives better advice about marriage than my mind is convinced it really does ... I seek help in this regard -- because I think one of the reasons I have not been the husband my wife deserves, is likely because I just don't really and truly understand the Spirit of the Bible -- so I have used what I thought was the Letter.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2008 22:41:16 GMT -7
Ok, i was originally referrring to the person who started the thread, sorry if that wasnt clear.
By tool i was meaning as a method to achieve a certain outcome.
The marriage bed is sacred, a great gift God designed, cheapening it by comming to that place with a hard heart is sad.
Sex within the confines of marriage is a precious thing, something to be enjoyed rather than used.
Its helpfull at times to look at issues we have as results of programming as we have grown. The environment we were raised in , the world we live in etc, sets us up for the patterns we have in our lives...like a pc program.
As adults, we are free to change them or add to them, in whatever ways we choose, and an informed choice is a good choice.
Realising these influences, enables us to change them.
Denis, please PM me if you would like to pray together, we can meet by the spirit in the throne room of heaven.
I feel 'praying for' is disempowering. hope you dont find that offensive.
On the issue of translation, its aim is to provide a differing perspective...in the attempt to allow a greater understanding of the Word... a richer one so to speak.
God is a wise God, and sees the begining and the end of all things...therefor His word is appropriate for any age in the history of the earth and holds the same relevence now, as it did then.
Personally, i believe in the power of the holy spirit, he is our councellor amongst many other things. The spirit of God often reveales meanings to readers of the bible, and conviction of varous things. To gain a greater richness from the Word of God, its imperative to be open to Holy Spirit, as revelation is a personal thing, i believe all should seek their own revelation from Gods word. Its as simple as just asking Him for revelation/understanding/wisdom- as He never leaves us nor forsakes us, and gives good gifts to his children. Jesus tells us to come bodly to Him and to caste our cares upon Him, its an invitation, all we need to do is accept it.
On the issue of the message, i am a huge fan....i too have a strong attraction to the new king james, but the message has a wonderfull gift of using modern language to adequatly portray Gods message to mankind.
The meaning doesnt change, just the delivery and ability to grasp that meaning, which is so important.
But above all, and even with the most difficult of translations, Holy Spirit is able to reveal the meaning of the Bible to all people, believers and unbelievers alike. He is a great resource, teacher, councellor and friend, who opens many doors on the christian walk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 10:26:10 GMT -7
I think this particular topic is just like every other problem or difficulty in life: before you can find a solution, first you need to understand the problem. This is why God did not give the Israelites an open forum...he gave them a law...a law that is both practical and spiritual.
LUST is not in the Ten Commandments as a word but it most certainly is connected with Adultery, but is not exactly the same thing...they are both the children of a more fundamental sin - COVETOUSNESS. Covetousness is the passionate desire to have something that is not yours to have - like, for instance, your neighbors donkey. DESIRE is not forbidden anywhere in the Bible but ONLY desire for what God has forbidden or what is not your property. (LUST FOR YOUR WIFE OR HUSBAND IS AN OXYMORON...pure logic demands that it is). If you think that desire and passion are forbidden, than you have gotten the wrong religion - that's Buddhism.
Fantasy is not only ok, in a general sense, it is crucial to our existence and it is mostly connected with our ability to be creative - one of the chief ways in which we reflect God's image. But like all of our faculties as humans, our gift of fantasy has been tainted by sin. So instead of fantasizing about how we will make a better light bulb, we spend our time fantasizing about the things that we Covet. [For unregenerate men, last I checked the stats, the object of their fantasy is having sex with just about anyone every five minutes or so. With Christian men this is curbed to probably once a day, right before they say a little confession and ask God for forgiveness - yes, I'm a Christian man.]
So in a marriage relationship, where your bodies are not your own, but mutually belong to each other (ONE FLESH), LUST is not on the table. That is, LUST for each other is impossible...it's the wrong word. Desire for each other is the issue, and that is not only lawful before God but extremely healthy in practical terms. If I desire my wife, and then fantasize about the desire that I have for my wife, I have broken no laws in the Bible or in nature. That's like saying, that someone who eats should never dream of food. It's ridiculous, and not what God expects from a married man or woman.
Having said that, there is sexual perversion that can be brought into a marriage from the outside world. Things that are dirty and unnatural for people to do to each other, even in marriage. To do those things is a violation of nature and thus a violation of God's natural law...apart from his revealed law (though some sexual perversions are mentioned even there). So for a woman or a man to fantasize about these things, even with their spouse, is to sin in the mind. So, even in a marriage, there is a line to which sex can be sinful both in our mind and also in our bodies. Sex is plenty enjoyable without perversion. I don't, for instance, think that oral sex is a sin. Our mouths are a expression of intimacy. It's really just a further extension of kissing.
Pornography is, by the very term, a sinful thing, act, and industry (in Greek Porne means prostitute). The display of nakedness and sexual acts of any sort is all an invention and extension of prostitution. The idea of prostitution is that men and women can escape the rightful responsibilities of being a husband/wife by paying a stranger to have sex with them...and so, though pictures are less expensive, they are none-the-less just as much a sin as strolling down the street and finding a prostitute. It's safer (in terms of disease and not getting caught by the police), and easier (you don't have to go anywhere), but, I assure you, in the Day of Judgement it will plainly be referred to as prostitution.
Now, since pornography is prostitution. Those in the pictures are prostitutes...simple. Doesn't matter if you paid them directly, or even if they made a dime off of the transaction, the people in the pornography are prostitutes. In the day of judgement, this will not be called "standing naked in front of a camera", it will be called prostitution.
So, what if the person in the photograph is your spouse? Well, is it a photograph, or is it pornography? Better yet, is the reason you want to see your spouse naked in a photograph because you want fantasize about them being like a prostitute? The Bible talks about us not having an appearance of evil, and taking pictures of your spouse looks a lot like pornography, which is a form of prostitution. So you are basically asking your spouse to act like a prostitute.
However, being found naked on a photograph - like when giving birth, or swimming, or whatever - is not pornography...but then to use the picture for sexual arousal is, very definitely, turning that picture into pornography...and thus treating, though perhaps secretly, that person in the photo like a prostitute.
M is basically a form of fornication (sex outside of marriage) unless it is done in the marriage bed...but then, what's the point. Love from the other is point of the whole thing. Sex is simply an extension of love...and so M is loving oneself, essentially...although, I know this is a gray area...one which God intended to be gray, I believe. There are justifications for it here and there, but never to replace sex between a husband and wife. I do think that is impossible without sexual arousal, and therefore, if done outside of marriage, is a sin...simple. Any sexual activity outside of marriage, and between two people, a man and woman, is fornication, and a sin. Simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 6:26:52 GMT -7
Well stated! We ought not to lust after our wives -- desire is the keyword.
But our desire should be for intimacy with our spouse -- and that not necessarily sexual. Desire should always move toward drawing closer together emotionally rather than physically, beginning with words of praise, thankfulness for each other -- and well before the bedroom is reached. How about engaging that verbal intercourse in the kitchen while clearing the table and filling the dishwasher? That process of affirmation should naturally lead to hugs, embracing. After several minutes of unscheduled foreplay (still standing up), arousal should be well established. It becomes an automatic to then proceed to sexual intercourse.
The responsibility in establishing sexual marital intimacy largely rests with the husband who, invariably, will be the one who initiates sex due to his stronger drive for orgasm. Because males are generally aroused before females, the husband needs to avoid rushing into sex. That's why so many wives fail to reach orgasm. Too many of us men come to the marriage bed set on a quick penetration and release to the general disappointment of the wife. The husband should ensure his wife experiences the big bang first -- by whatever means she best achieves that release and over the extended period of time it may take her to get there. If the husband has made the first move to initiate sex, it goes without saying that he'll also be able to have his release once his wife has hers.
A selfish desire toward sex works to rob a couple of true intimacy. Sex grounded in a disregard for the gratification of one's partner seldom provides the "sky rockets in flight" release that the song " Afternoon Delight" suggests will happen.
Going further :
I think that some married men may drift into porn as a result of a weak sexual response on the part of their wives. An unresponsive wife may seem boring and porn may generate a measure of excitement in a husband that is desirable to him and missing from his marital relations. But if the husband were to work at cultivating that response in his wife, porn may not appear to be so appealing. The husband and wife reflect the relationship that exists between Christ and His bride. The Lord is the keeper and leader of the Church as the husband is the keeper and leader of his wife. As the Lord made the first move in drawing His bride, so the husband (traditionally) courts and wins the heart of his beloved. And the Lord continues to develop the relationship with His Bride -- He takes the initiative in leading her and loving her. So too, is the husband charged with developing the relationship with his wife. That would include fostering a solid and satisfying love life. Thus the onus is on the husband to initiate it and bring it along; and the wife is charged with full co-operation to establish that measure of reciprocity.
The late Paul Newman was once asked why he had not entered into affairs and what was the reason he had remained faithful to his wife, Joanne Woodward for so many years. His answer: " When you have steak at home you don't go out looking for hamburger." There was obviously a magnetism between these two but I think also a considerable amount of work to ensure that their sexual relationship was rock solid.
|
|
