Let's stop pretending, even amongst professed Christians, casual sex is an accepted thing.

Why would a kid start PMO? Because it feels good. Because it feels so good, that we choose to ignore what we know to be right. Isn't that a rather obvious answer?

Here's another example for you: Christians are called to love our enemies. I and most Christians fail at this miserably on a daily basis. Does that mean we "don't believe" Jesus commands us to love our enemies? No. It means it's an incredibly difficult thing to do and we've failed at the challenge. Just like that horny teenaged kid with a computer in his room. He knows it's wrong but it feels so right.

Regardless, I wasn't a Christian when i started. I was an atheist... or more accurately a progressive liberal agnostic. Don't judge me - I was raised that way. I didn't know PMO was bad. In fact, I and all my liberal friends and parents thought MO was natural (and therefore good) and P harmless. Mostly I was told to follow my heart. And my heart told me porn=good. Boy 'o boy, were we wrong!

 

Now I see. I wrote about Christians who were Christians already at the time of their first experiences with PMO.
Your case is an exemption. But still you didn't do and didn't believe in what is said in NT at the start of your PMO. I don't say that you are or were guilty. I only state that we all are on this forum because when our addiction started we didn't do and believe in what is said in NT, regardless of causes: some of us were unbelievers then ( as you), some were too young to receive consciously faith, some didn't know what the Christian faith says about PMO because either parents or priests didn't inform them about it and at last some ( I think the majority) created their own version of Christianity where this was permited or even good.
I think only the last group was guilty from the begin on. I was in the last group and I come from an established Catholic country where 95% were Catholics at the time of my childhood so I know that vast majority of my country men created in themselves their own version of Christianity ignoring what the Church and their priests have always said.

 

Yes, it really means that we don't believe in what Jesus said. There can be some explanation:
1. Some don't believe that it is possible to a common man ( maybe only to saints )
2. Some think it's foolish and not just to love somebody who killed your parent or who hates you.
3. Some think that this love your enemies law is good but don't pray so that they could receive such difficult love as a gift. So they don't believe that Jesus can do it possible in them.

There are possible some more explanation.
To believe for a Catholic is not to acknowledge something as truth.
We are only then candidates to believing, only supporters or fans of Jesus.
To believe means to do something what a tenet of faith says.
So if somebody says that they believe that God is almighty and can do all good for us when we ask Him but if they don't pray or pray not enough to ask for a good then they either don't believe that God really can do this for them or hasitate in faith or ....

Why I don't pray to holy cows? Because I don't believe they can do something for me beside of milk and beef.
Faith without deeds is dead. You can read this in NT, can't you?

 

The thing is from what I've seen most Christians don't have Christian thinking or views. To paraphrase from Gandi " I like your Christ, but your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I don't think having morals means one believes in the Bible. I also don't think being matter of fact about what is written in the bible makes one Christian any more than being matter of fact about science or history.

 

I read about another saying of Gandi -" if Christians obeyed their faith as they obey road signs I would be one if them''
But one thing I don't understand and maybe you can help me with an explanation - why was Gandi a Hinduist believer knowing that so many Hindu believers abuse their religious rules. ( there were then bloody fights and hate between Hindu and Moslems resulting in over milion of victims and mass ethnic cleanses.

 

I don't really know much about Gandhi other than the one quote and a few historical anecdotes. Even less about the history of India.

None of that or what you said, Mr Eko, changes the accuracy and truth of the quote from Gandi.

 

These are your 2 statesments written in the period of 2 days. the first one contradicts the second one.
So according to what you wrote yesterday you critisize not Christians but only the people who call themselves so.
And I asked you , according to your own definition who is a Christian, why you aren't one of them ( the real ones).
So until now you haven't answered my question. You answered me only why you aren't a fake Christian (according to your definition).
It's the similar case like about Gandi. Something that prevented him from being a Christian didn't prevent him from being a Hindu believer.
So in both cases it's only an excuse.

 

I don't see the contradiction at all? I think I said in another sentence technically they aren't really Christians.

If your question is who IMO is a "real Christian" it's someone who follows the teachings of Christ as outlined in the Bible. That isn't the modern day Christian.

 

My question was why aren't you a Christian who follows the teachings of Christ as outlined in the Bible. Could you answer this?

 

I don't believe in it.

 

A candid answer. By the way you could be a real Christian. ( my opinion only)

 

Really it depends on what one considers to be a Christian. I know of some Protestants who think most Catholics aren't Christians and are going to hell. I would expect there are some Catholics who believe the very same thing about Protestants. Then there are other groups that think they are the true Christians. My Mum goes to a church that thinks like that. Apparently, they're known as Two by Two or Christian Conventions or Assemblies of Christians or The Testimony of Jesus or United Christian Conventions - in our family, we would refer to them as the Friends and Workers. I used to think that they were unknown and they pretty much are but I've just found out they're stuff on them online. Anyway, they believe they the true followers of Jesus and no other Christian or church is. But I think if you believe that Jesus was the son of God, he was crucified and then rose from the dead then you are a true Christian. You don't really need to believe in anything else.

On the subject of casual sex, I don't know if it's an accepted thing among such people. I do think casual sex is destructive and I think science shows us how destructive it is. You have the fact that oxytocin is released by men and women when they have sex and oxytocin is only released to form a special attachment. Why would want to form a special attachment to someone you barely know?

Having said all that I think the Christian purity culture is just as destructive. Purity has ruined many lives. I used to listen to Mark Driscoll a lot. I know that it turned that he was a bad Pastor while at Mars Hill but still he said some good stuff back then. I remember him partly mocking and partly criticising purity culture by saying, 'the church says to single people to not have sex because it's bad, but save it for the one you love'. I've read stories of Christians due to purity they rushed into marriage (so they could have sex) and after a couple of years of marriage got divorced, couples who feel guilty for having sex within their marriage, and other similar stories. Even the author of I Kissed Dating Goodbye now recognises that his books caused damage. I'm pretty sure many people growing up in the church have become porn addicts due to what they were told about sex growing up.

The fact is not a great deal is said in the Bible about 'premarital sex'. In my old church, I once lead a Bible study once on sex and in preparation tried to find scriptures that explicitly said to not have sex before marriage and I couldn't really find any. Sure Jesus and Apostle Paul sort of reference waiting but nowhere in scripture does it command, 'Do not have sex before marriage'. The closest thing I could find to a commandment was Hebrews 13:4 and even that's somewhat vague. I mean what does it really mean for the 'marriage bed' to be 'kept pure'. During that Bible study, my old Pastor said something really interesting about the issue of purity. He said purity isn't just limited to sex. I've disagreed with many things he's said but that's a good point. Being pure isn't just being free from lust but also being free from jealousy, impatience, judgment, unforgiveness. Really when you think about it such characteristics don't just destroy sex lives but relationships also. It should also be said, depending on how you read Song of Songs there seems to be premarital sex taking place and it's not condemned at all if anything it's celebrated.


I think it's nice to wait until marriage but it's not the end of the world if a couple has premarital sex. I think it's best to get the know the person before you have sex but it doesn't necessarily have to be saved for marriage. I read members on here saying they have sex with someone after 2 weeks of dating and I think that is way too soon because I don't think you can truly know a person having only met them 2 weeks ago. Lastly, I think it's important to remember that people don't stay that together in the long run because of the sex, they stay together because they have a genuine, deep-level admiration. I think at the end of the day sex is a wonderful thing but it's also been overrated both by liberals and conservatives.

 

Getting away from any religious teachings about sexual morality -

I can say that in my life, my sexual experiences before marriage and pornography during marriage have only damaged and reduced the potential joy available through my marriage. My wife and I have spent nearly two decades trying to repair, together, the brokenness that this world's sexual morality (and abuse in her case) has inflicted on us. This is an ongoing process that has shown tremendous results but still needs work.

Ultimately, there is more to life and marriage than sex, but sex does have the potential to be a powerful way for two people to bond. Any sex or fantasy outside of a committed relationship reduces the power of that bond, and turns sex into something like PMO. Casual sex and pornography turns sex into something self-centered, both a chasing after short lived brain pleasure.

Married sex, done with the right intention, is something selfless - an offering of your body for the joy of the other. It is a pursuit of love and long term contentment.

It shouldn't be a fight over morals - some people shaking their fingers at others and them longing for the freedom to enjoy themselves. Determining what is moral is a determination of what is best for everyone, what will bring everybody the greatest long term joy.

 

So I imagined a pedofile who after raping a 3 years old child murdered it and after that he professed thatJesus was the son of God, he was crucified and then rose from the dead..... and after a month or 2 he did so with another kid and after that he again professed thatJesus was the son of God, he was crucified and then rose from the dead .... after some other pedofile acts and murderers he came to conclusion - Now I can do everything what I wish .... I can steal, murder, lie, rape.... and I can be called a true Christian, not only be called so - I have been , am and will be a true Christian because after every my evil deed I profess that Jesus was the son of God, he was crucified and then rose from the dead and at the end of my life I can be sure to get into heaven because Jesus loves true Christians.

If you lived with such true Christians in one flat could you sleep well?

 

@Mr Eko You don't need to be a Christian to know that the behaviour you've described is unacceptable. No one would be excused from such crimes if they said they didn't know it was wrong because they weren't a Christian. People can have morals without having a faith.

Jesus told us to love one another and what you described was definitely not loving.

In the context of what I was writing it was in response to those who think their church is the only church for true. Is it right for Protestants to say all Catholics are going to hell? Should one church look down on other churches because their way of interpreting the Bible or worship is different?

Maybe it would have been better if I had said if someone follows the teachings of Jesus in the gospels (where there's no evidence to call into question the authenticity of such words), as well as believing that Jesus was the son of God, he was crucified and then rose from the dead and then you are a true Christian.

Or maybe I should have simply said that those who don't believe that Christ rose from the dead shouldn't think of themselves as Christians. But people can still be a Christian and accept evolution or think women are allowed to preach. Equally, you can still have morals without having any faith.

 

wow you have not masturbated since 2014........
please give us some tips

 

http://yournewswire.com/women-dna-man-sex/

^ Wasn't this story proven to be a hoax?

Do you think adultury is wrong, and if so why? What about swingers?

 

You're speaking about actions. You haven't said anything about the condition of this person's heart.

God's grace is infinite to those who are truly contrite and repentant ... but only God knows the level of sincerity in the human heart. Pedophiles are acting on compulsion. Virtually 100% of them have sex addiction that just expresses itself toward children. They need help just like you and I do with porn addiction. The big difference, of course, is that our addiction isn't inflicting immediate, criminal, and traumatic damage to the most vulnerable among us. If this person is genuinely doing everything they can to get better and just can't seem to--who am I to judge? How many times have I fallen and relapsed in my own addiction? I've tried and failed hundreds of times.

King David slept with another man's wife and then had her husband killed in battle so he could avoid the consequences. He's still considered "a man after God's heart." No one is beyond God's saving grace.

Now, to your other point: scripture is clear that the grace of God is not license to behave however we want. Romans 6 is all about that. Anyone who thinks they can live however they want and just "repent at the finish line" will be in for a rude awakening.

 

This man I described will be judged not by me or anybody else . He will be judged by God's Word:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlerswill inherit the kingdom of God.

Really?

 

This I described here:

https://www.nofap.com/forum/index.php?threads/prayer-group.39691/page-27