why does God hate masterbation?

[Jayson]

1. That section of Genesis, as one would expect, says absolutely nothing about masturbation.
   If you read the original Hebrew (which you don’t even need to) the only aspect being discussed is evil; not masturbation.

2. The Inquisition was not all focused on paganism; such a concept actually didn’t exist at the time. There was with the Church, and not with the Church. What had occurred was a fanatical take-over of a very physical belief in Zoroastrian concepts of good and evil.
   It was feared that evil was sweeping through the souls of people in literal form.
   This, like any other belief was also used by corrupt leaders of all calibers to meet their own ends, but they were not the only forces pushing, as the Church itself was primarily focused on the direct fear that evil demons were literally consuming the lives of people.
   In the mind of the inquisition, those they were torturing were literally demons, and when they killed someone thought to be taken by an evil demon, they believed the possession of the soul was then released and the soul of the person was free to choose the Christian God. Hence, the prayer post death.

It is historically recognized as one of the best examples of mass hysterical delusion.

Also, moresillystuff, you are only thinking of the Inquisition in the terms of the English actions. One does need to consider the rest of the Holy Roman Churches perishes where the same thought process was being exercised in a wide range of varieties, and not just against pagan’s; once again, a thought that did not exist at the time.

There are exact manuscripts from the era defining all of the accordances of evil, demons, how to test a soul for possession, attempt to drive it out, and ultimately if nothing else, save the soul through cleansing (yes, that is a euphemism).

This wasn’t done on some grand scale to “get the good and harmless pagan’s”.
That’s actually humorous, because many “pagan” concepts are pretty violent in practice; there aren’t really allot of old beliefs that were passive like neopagan constructs are today.

The interesting thing about the Inquisition is that it was largely contested time and time again by members of the Church scholars and even slandered as heretical; to believe that the physical world is evil, to many of the scholars, was to suggest that God was a failure, which was slanderous to suggest.

Further, the extreme bend on the dualist Zoroastrian mindset or it’s use with Christianity was opposed by the Roman empire, Platonist’s, and Orthodox Christians alike.

Once again, it was a form of belief, a variant of Christianity, that took hold by it’s popularity with it’s ability to compel such passion through fear that made this attractive to the common, and the priests.
To live in a world where your theology is actively alive and real; tangible.
That your opposition is literally a demon you can possess in chains.

That is a powerful compelling force for people looking for a tangible and real belief; something that has form and face and not just a boogieman of mystery.

You also have to remember that most of these “pagan” concepts that you are thinking of were exactly the practices that were being mixed into the “War against evil”, as people bought into the idea that evil was literally sweeping through and taking hold of people, the common people turned to their known attempts with their new religious beliefs, and many of the text-books for dealing with demons and devils, written by priests, are filled with investigative reports on the effective practices of local customs and beliefs of a given village that a priest was passing through.
As too, the ideas of evil in physical forms was compounded by these same sources.

Like I said, it is looked at as an innocent start with a wild and hysterical ending in history.
This is probably why so many scholars in history did not agree with the Zoroastrian or extreme Gnostic thoughts; they simply lead down an eventually dangerous form of practice as they hold all physical as evil, which means that one can literally fight evil in one’s mind by attacking all that is physical and not shunning it’s physical form.

[moresillystuff]

@TheStumps

2. The Inquisition was not all focused on paganism;

No, not all, but in part. People who lived in traditional ways, ie. pagan, were persecuted. Those who did not use the church as the highest authority for religion. These people were often accused of being witches. Also some of the heretical groups were more open to sexuality. Further the church as a whole had harsh views of sexual relations outside certain restricted areas. And still does. This was my primary point. The inquisition was used, in many cases, as a way of punishing people who did not adhere. Or do we think that all the witches were witches? And all the heretics were heretics? And all the blasphemers…

such a concept actually didn’t exist at the time.

The dynamic did.

This, like any other belief was also used by corrupt leaders of all calibers to meet their own ends, but they were not the only forces pushing, as the Church itself was primarily focused on the direct fear that evil demons were literally consuming the lives of people.

Which certainly affected the way they viewed, for example, the cultures in the Americas, and how this view affected their ‘treatment’ of these people.

In the mind of the inquisition, those they were torturing were literally demons, and when they killed someone thought to be taken by an evil demon, they believed the possession of the soul was then released and the soul of the person was free to choose the Christian God. Hence, the prayer post death.

And think how similar sexual feelings were viewed and are viewed by the church.

There are exact manuscripts from the era defining all of the accordances of evil, demons, how to test a soul for possession, attempt to drive it out, and ultimately if nothing else, save the soul through cleansing (yes, that is a euphemism).

I think this is still an idealized image of the church - if a negative one. These practices were used to settle petty disputes, jealousy, to hit outsiders - for example independent and sometimes sexually active women. In the same ways that laws are selectively applied.

This wasn’t done on some grand scale to “get the good and harmless pagan’s”.
That’s actually humorous, because many “pagan” concepts are pretty violent in practice; there aren’t really allot of old beliefs that were passive like neopagan constructs are today.

If this is directed at me I never said that pagans were harmless. They were people after all. So however humorous it is someone else’s joke and not mine.

You also have to remember that most of these “pagan” concepts that you are thinking of were exactly the practices that were being mixed into the “War against evil”, as people bought into the idea that evil was literally sweeping through and taking hold of people, the common people turned to their known attempts with their new religious beliefs, and many of the text-books for dealing with demons and devils, written by priests, are filled with investigative reports on the effective practices of local customs and beliefs of a given village that a priest was passing through.
As too, the ideas of evil in physical forms was compounded by these same sources.

Sure, the church has always been believers in pagan entities, but thought they were evil. The church were not scientists dismissing the claims of pagans or those with folk beliefs. They were taking over as THE authority and making any other authority evil. And any individual who thought they could practice their own spirituality unmediated by priest or Rome a heretic, etc.

My primary point is that, in fact, groups of people do get together and decide that other people should not have sex in certain ways or with certain people. In this case the group was, at least officially, celibate.

The argument I disagreed with was the idea that it has always been, simply and purely, practical concerns - if mythologized - that led to restrictive rules and laws and controls around sex. As if these people were either directly rational - iow understood the practical issues - or would guided unconsciously by rational impulses - increasing the numbers in the tribe, for example. That is just too rosy for me. There are a lot of people who think that passion, strong feelings and sex are per se dangerous and these people have tried to control others because of their own predelictions, confused generalizations, jealousy, fears, etc.

[b][i]In the 1500’s Jakob Sprenger published the “Malleus Maleficarum”. In his book, he outlines the ways to determine if someone is a witch, how to run the trial and what questions to ask, and the punishments to be carried out. Some of the traits now given to magic workers are as follows.

1. Older women were likely to be a witch, as they reached their age by the use of Devil-granted powers.

2. If they participated in any form of sexual activity outside the basic intercourse for procreation with their spouse.

3. If they had any strange mark on their body that, if pricked, felt no pain, or did not bleed. This was the devils mark, and he supposedly put it on all who had pledged allegiance to him.

4. If they kept a pet. Any pet could be brought under suspicion as a familiar, a witches companion sent by the devil. This probably came from the pagan belief that animals were representations of the supernatural. Witches familiars were usually cats, crows, lizards, goats or rodents. All these had relations to ill omens or dark ideas in paganism, and were easily adapted into becoming tools of the devil. Since most houses had some form of infestation of any one of these animals, suspected familiars were in no short supply.

5. Any odd behavior could be taken as a sign of witchcraft. Not going to church for any reason other then illness was sure to put a person in suspect of heresy. If a person was an outcast or kept to themselves they were among the first to be accused. People who socialized or sympathized with outcasts or those accused were put under suspicion.

His works were admired by Pope Innocent VII, who backed up the German witch hunter and wrote his own endorsements of Sprenger. “…The Catholic Faith should especially in this Our day increase and flourish everywhere, and that all heretical depravity should be driven far from the frontiers and bournes of the Faithful, We very gladly proclaim…those particular means and methods whereby Our pious desire may obtain its wished effect, when all errors are uprooted by Our diligent avocation,… a zeal for, and the regular observance of, Our holy Faith will be all the more strongly impressed upon the hearts of the faithful.” was the a passage written by the Pope to endorse the witch hunts and help exterminate heresy. [/i][/b]

Numbers 2 and 5 being most relevent, but even 4 with has vestiges of concern coming from paganism where the distinction between humans and animals are not so strong and relationships are more involved between species.

Humorously the church tries to downplay the numbers of people tried tortured and killed. But imagine how effective even the low estimates the church makes would be on the populace. How many lynchings did it take to affect, IN GENERAL, the way blacks related to whites and acted on their own in post Civil War Southern US?

To me the monotheisms - at least Christianity, Judaism and Islam - show a tremendous distrust of the human body and sexuality, a distrust not shared by many pagan and indigenous religions - though these also have restrictions. It is not to say Oh, the pagan religions were just peachy, but rather that part of the long standing problem these monotheisms have had with pagans or local religions is that they are less restrictive around bodies - in certain ways or in general. Also in terms of sexuality. Some of this is misperceptions on the part of the church, some of this is correct.

[moresillystuff]

Some relevent sources

The Repression of Sexual Behavior
by the Aragonese Inquisition
between 1560 and 1700

ANDRÉ FERNANDEZ
University of Strasbourg II

TO EXPLAIN the tremendous increase in the repression of sexual of­
fenses that took place in the kingdom of Aragon around 1560, one has
to assume that the jurisdiction of the inquisitorial authorities was rede­
fined as early as the beginning of the sixteenth century, before further
changes followed naturally from the Council of Trent. Shortly after this
period, the tribunal of the Inquisition was to adopt a more systematic
and specialized approach to this type of offense, which was to rise con­
siderably in numbers at the end of the sixteenth century. This particular
mission, all the more peculiar as it could concern people who had no
apparent link with heresy, was to gain ground at tremendous speed dur­
ing the last decades of the century. The scope of this unique phenome­
non in the history of the Holy Office apparently aimed at nothing less
than moral purification.

When it was first created, the principal task of the Spanish Inquisi­
tion–as for all its European counterparts–was to eradicate all forms of
heresy from regions where orthodoxy was seriously threatened. It prose­
cuted, tried, and punished people guilty of crimes of faith. However, in
modern Spain, the jurisdiction of this tribunal had come to overlap more
and more with episcopal and royal courts. In addition to crimes against
faith, it also prosecuted various offenses that bore no real relation to
dogma, such as solicitation, bigamy, sodomy, and bestiality. It is hard to
claim that the Inquisition regarded those guilty of these offenses as here­
tics. Their crimes, based essentially on sexual acts, bear only a tenuous
relation to heresy. When trying people for such offenses, the Inquisition
was content to establish the materiality of the act but did not question

and

books.google.se/books?id=qbMEXTp … &ct=result

where in the middle paragraph the Inquisition defines extramarital sex as a sin and punishes it.

and

accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su … 079754_ITM

in Mexico where a scholar describes the way the Inquisition was used to regulate sexual behavior and relevent to this thread, a women is tried for the crime of mastubation and other ‘dishonesties’.

and
here again, related to the Spanish Inquisition
enforex.com/culture/spanish-inquisition.html

The monarchy especially feared the intervention of Jewish and Moorish reinforcements from abroad, so they forced non-Catholics to choose between conversion to Catholicism or expulsion from the country to eliminate the possibility. Those suspected of practicing Protestantism, non-Catholic-approved sexual acts, black magic and anything else that the monarchy saw as a threat also found themselves amongst the persecuted.

My bold.

So, certainly, as Xuncian has pointed out, the church was concerned with other interpretations of the Bible or Jesus - iow heresies - but it is quite clear that the machinations of the Inquistion - not to speak of the myriad ways the church as a whole sought to control and regulate sexual behavior - did in fact seek out to restrict sexual behavior.
And as a last note on Pagans, from the OED…

Pagan

The term pagan is from the Latin paganus, an adjective originally meaning “rural”, “rustic” or “of the country.” As a noun, paganus was used to mean “country dweller, villager.”[6] The semantic development of post-classical Latin paganus in the sense “non-Christian, heathen” is unclear. The dating of this sense is controversial, but the 4th century seems most plausible. An earlier example has been suggested in Tertullian De Corona Militis xi, “Apud hunc [sc. Christum] tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis,” but here the word paganus may be interpreted in the sense “civilian” rather than “heathen”. There are three main explanations of the development:

* (i) The older sense of classical Latin pāgānus is "of the country, rustic" (also as noun). It has been argued that the transferred use reflects the fact that the ancient idolatry lingered on in the rural villages and hamlets after Christianity had been generally accepted in the towns and cities of the Roman Empire; cf. Orosius Histories 1. Prol. "Ex locorum agrestium compitis et pagis pagani vocantur." From its earliest beginnings, Christianity spread much more quickly in major urban areas (like Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome) than in the countryside (in fact, the early church was almost entirely urban), and soon the word for "country dweller" became synonymous with someone who was "not a Christian," giving rise to the modern meaning of "Pagan." This may, in part, have had to do with the closeness to nature of rural people, who may have been more resistant to the new ideas of Christianity than those who lived in major urban centers and were cut off from the cycles of nature and the forms of spirituality associated with them. However, it may have also resulted from early Christian missionaries focusing their efforts within major population centers (e.g., St. Paul), rather than throughout an expansive, yet sparsely populated, countryside (hence, the Latin term suggesting "uneducated country folk") until a bit later on.

– Oxford English Dictionary, (online) 2nd Edition (1989)

Thus any rustic/pagan who clung to traditional sprititual practices - magic, herbalism, certain rituals - were also open to accusations of black magic and thus finding themselves on the wrong of an inquisitor’s ripper. Hey, did you know that the priests discovered that you could still be alive even after all your skin was removed.

Amazing what the celibate will do to the sexual with a little mythological encouragement. Or the Christian monotheist will do to someone who seems just a tad too animist, polytheist, pantheist, etc.

[Jayson]

at least Christianity, Judaism and Islam - show a tremendous distrust of the human body and sexuality, a distrust not shared by many pagan and indigenous religions

Well, Judaism isn’t quite the same as the others, but this was exactly what my primary point was; this is because of the Zoroastrian influence, which, like I said, the early Church itself attempted to outcast, but in the end, ended up greatly influencing the thoughts of Christianity.

It is also stated that it had influence in some sects of Islam, but in differing ways.

Judaism, however, did not take much influence from them other than the concept of a soul with the ideal of the afterlife “Heaven” and “Hell” in a placement of good and evil.
Sex persuasion wasn’t much of an impact like it was for Christianity.

Most of what you are looking at though, is a large movement of Calvinist and Puritanism post-Inquisition influence that kept this thought process of physical denouncement.

The Catholic extreme, during the times of the inquisition and post, of course was the largest force.

The other two that I mention are the largest contributors to the protestant concepts of this carrying over, and especially in the America’s on the north-eastern demographic.

Mind you that I am not trying to suggest that the actions of the inquisition are excusable in regards to humanity, nor am I suggesting that the Christian concept at large is still not influenced by this Zoroastrian and Gnostic influence of physical realm being evil or lesser than the spiritual realm.

I am, however, attempting to show that the Church itself constantly fought even itself on this issue, and even today this subject is a large divide among even the Protestant sects of Christianity.

Many Christian minds still see the physical world as a corrupted and evil thing largely manipulated by the devil.

My primary point is that the Bible itself, doesn’t really hold any of these ideas in it.
These are largely dogmatic concepts and not Biblical.

[moresillystuff]

@TheStumps

Well, Judaism isn’t quite the same as the others, but this was exactly what my primary point was; this is because of the Zoroastrian influence, which, like I said, the early Church itself attempted to outcast, but in the end, ended up greatly influencing the thoughts of Christianity.

well, the Torah does speak out against homosexuality and masturbation, but my sense of Judaism in practice is milder, on these issues, than the other two religions.

Most of what you are looking at though, is a large movement of Calvinist and Puritanism post-Inquisition influence that kept this thought process of physical denouncement.

I dunno. It seems to me the RC church participated in and contributed to the way native americans were viewed by the Catholic colonists: that the NAs were beastial overly sexual overly passionate.

I am, however, attempting to show that the Church itself constantly fought even itself on this issue, and even today this subject is a large divide among even the Protestant sects of Christianity.

Yes, these are not monoliths. But I think one can generalize about the difference between Christianity and many pagan religions where sex per se is not seen as something that must be for procreation or must be justified in the same ways as it must be in Christianity. And that even where the pagan or indigenous religions were not really more open, they were perceived this way by the churches. And I believe that the way these other cultures were viewed relates to the way Christians view children - as semi bestial overly passionate potential misusers - read users - of sexual energy. And this must be trained out of them. It is a confessible sin to masturbate. And certainly many of the Protestants have long had problems with masturbation. Of course this has lightened up in recent years, generally.

Many Christian minds still see the physical world as a corrupted and evil thing largely manipulated by the devil.

Which, interestingly enough, is one of the areas where I see ‘rationalists’ as products of the Judao-Christian tradition. There is a great fear in both for the role of passion, intuition, emotion as proactive and free impulses, or worse as decision making contributers. You did not see this split so strongly in indigenous elders, for example. This idea that intuition is outside rationality or that emotion must be kept separate. It is a kind of mental purity issue.

My primary point is that the Bible itself, doesn’t really hold any of these ideas in it.
These are largely dogmatic concepts and not Biblical.

The OT is pretty judgmental of non-marital sex, even with yourself.

But I do agree that I see less hatred of the physical world in Judaism.

[niloc1324]

well you see in the old testy mint there is the 7 deadly sins and one of them is lust.
so the people who wrote it knew that every one like to jerk it and so they said that if you did you will burn in the lakes of fire for ever. and they did this so you will feel bad and confess to them giving them a kind of power over the simple minded person that would beleave in god. when in fack there is nothing wrong with it and i think the reason it is done is because it makes people happy and if it did not then people would not do it or have sex and the human race would die out.

or maby god made it so much fun so we would reproduce and the bible is just full of lies.

[Jayson]

Everything you pretty much replied back with is what I was getting at in the first place…but let’s poke at this part a bit…

@moresillystuff

well, the Torah does speak out against homosexuality and masturbation

The OT is pretty judgmental of non-marital sex, even with yourself.

Do you have anything in particular that you would like to cite here?

For the Passages you will most likely pull will be read with a Christian mind of reading instead of the ancient Jewish mind of reading.
For instance, the concept of adultery in the Jewish culture was not, oddly enough, to do with sleeping with anyone other than your wife.
It was, however, to do with defiling a woman who is has the right to marriage of her right to marriage by taking her virginity prior to marriage, and taking the sexual rights of a married woman’s husband by sleeping with his wife.

All forms of sexual wrong-doing in the OT actually have to do with theft of social placement.
The concepts of masturbation that exist in the OT also refer to refraining from sex with one’s wife; again stealing her place as a birth giver in society.

Even David’s act of taking another woman other than his wife, was an act of theft as he had the husband killed to take the woman as his own.
It wasn’t that he had another woman than his wife, but that he stole her and that she was of rightful place in society as a full rights married woman.

But I do agree that I see less hatred of the physical world in Judaism.

That’s because the early Jewish faith believed in balance of justice within one’s lifetime, not in an afterlife.
The afterlife was really not concentrated on for a very long time in the Judaic practices.
This is why it’s not brought up in the OT really; instead everything is about immediate punishment and immediate reward; in terms of while one is alive.
And that the ultimate punishment warned over and over is death; the end of life.

[Jayson]

@niloc1324

well you see in the old testy mint there is the 7 deadly sins and one of them is lust.
so the people who wrote it knew that every one like to jerk it and so they said that if you did you will burn in the lakes of fire for ever. and they did this so you will feel bad and confess to them giving them a kind of power over the simple minded person that would beleave in god.

This is incorrect.

Lust, in the Jewish concept isn’t of sex, like the Pauline mind would think.
It’s not of something taking your focus away from the divine, but that Lust in the Jewish law is of that which is not rightfully yours.

Adultery is an act that one accomplishes by degradation of another.
For instance, if you are not yet married as a man, then you belong to your father, and as such, you are owned by him.
You are to be clean for his “selling”, so to speak, to marriage.
To defile that with sleeping with other married women, or with prostitutes outside of your fathers instruction was wrong because it caused your father the inability to marry you off into proper placement in society.

It caused a lie; that you were rightful for marriage; of which was supposed to be clean of adultery.

If you were a woman, your virginity was the same value, except you were never allowed sex prior to marriage if you were available for marriage.

And to take a virgin outside of marriage was the worst of all, as the father didn’t have a son in place of that daughter, and now she is completely worthless and only good for prostitution.

Lusting after another wife than your own is worse because it defiles your marriage and another in respect to social placement.

That is what Lust was for the Jewish mind of that time.

It was not the Catholic impurity of the body vs. the spirit that came far, far later.

One has to keep in mind that the early Jewish idea did not hold that the body and soul were separate things. To them, they were the same, so to hold the bodies desires as evil separate from a pure spirit would be an alien concept as it would indicate that they saw that the spirit of a person was able to be taken over by the body; or to say it another way, that one’s actions could be evil outside of one’s spiritual control; to be overtaken by “sinful acts”.

These are not thoughts in the early Jewish mind, as everyone was responsible for their actions fully, and Satanel was not a possessor, but a tester of one’s commitment to one’s oath’s that one made.
If you failed to pass those tests, then you failed at your responsibility; not some force of evil’s responsibility.

[Jayson]

Kind of a case in point to all of this is a simple little passage…Leviticus 18, 6 - 23

6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

14 " 'Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 " 'Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Now, if the law was, don’t have sex until marriage, there wouldn’t really be a need for pretty much…any of these laws.

Furthermore, you can see here that it was custom to marry more than one wife:

Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living

The law is not to take her as your second wife AND have sex with her.
But you could marry her.

Why?
Because, what happens if she is unmarried and past the age of being wed?
What happens if she is no longer suited for marriage because of some horrid incident that prevents her from being properly married?

Well, she could be married to one of her sister’s husbands to save some grace.
She would not be allowed offspring, but she would be allowed proper place as rights of a married woman and respected as such.
This is better than no marriage at all.

And why is it OK to have sex with her after your wife is dead?
Because what if you still need offspring?
The sister of your first wife, out of any of your wives, is going to be more worthy than any other wife, as the second bearer of your offspring as they are of the same blood; so it is likely the best mix to keep the same blood line going.

Again, this is a win/win for both families involved.

If you think about marriage as a place in society and a transfer of ownership and right, then passages like these really come clearly into focus.

If you try to think of it only in terms of the Christian concept of holy matrimony…passages like these just don’t make sense…at all.

Or there’s this one:

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

This shows the customary practice of multiple marriages within the same father.

Or this one:

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

Why are there two statements that appear the same?
Well, this one is about your father’s produced offspring from any woman, while the first was about sisters that are brought into the home through marriage or taken from another extension of some family somewhere along the line.

One could “adopt” any child not yet married (which, marriage, was the only definition of man or woman until someone hit the age of not being capable of reproduction) into their family as good as their own children.
These adoptions could be out of aid, or paid for.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

TheStumps, Jews rejected Jesus. They don’t count, and I don’t know why we are using their books today, but we are. Anyways, this post isn’t about the old concepts of God. It’s about modern jesusisms. That word has for "S"s.

Jesus is God, because.
Jesus may have healed and forgived everybody, but that doesn’t mean he’s not jealous and vengeful the way that the Jewish books written before his fatherless birth described him as.

Does that make sense? It shouldn’t, because it’s so divine and superior to you.

At the surface it may appear that we “own” our own organs and bodyparts, but if God made and owns us, he gets to tell us what we do, and we’re his slaves we’re not our own people. That would mean that he gets to tell you what and what not you do with any organ of your body, sexual or non-sexual.

If we evolved from chimps, then chimps are our gods and our original creators. We owe them our lives, and our bodies belong to them…?

I have theologically concluded that Darwinists should worship and masterbate chimps.

[Jayson]

@Dan~

TheStumps…

I see.
So you are looking at the dogma (as opposed to Biblical) of Christian sects that hold this view, and making a sarcastic remark to the logic involved.

Fair enough, I have nothing to say about that, as I cannot say much more unless we specificy a given sect of Christianty as an example that holds this view, as the logic used for this view in those sects are widely different and varied.