As far as sex being only for procreation, this is most certainly wrong.

If having sex with your wife while not trying to have a child was I sin, I think that I would most certainly be going to hell

As far as masturbation, no there is nothing in the bible that says anything against it specifically. As I believe someone pointed out, if one was to think about his wife, or possibly someone (if that person was not married) in a "marriage" situation, it seems to me to be perfectly acceptable.

I would be more than happy to look at any biblical evidence to the contrary. So far no one has presented any.

Other than the "devote yourself to prayer" part, this is very wise advise. If more married couples followed it, there'd be many more happy marriages in this world.

In fact, you aren't looking at the woman with porn either. You're looking at an image on a screen but not the woman herself. At a strip club you're looking at the women onstage, unless there happens to be a conveniently placed mirror at the club, in which case you might try looking at their reflection.

Prince wrote a song about it: Let's Pretend We're Married

Well actually he might be going beyond just imagining the marriage situation there.

You guys are only lying to yourself.

Then support it biblically. Either the position has biblical support or it doesn't. If it does, then present it, if it doesn't then don't say "God doesn't want to masturbate" say "Gunth doesn't want you to masturbate".

Sorry i will quote what i was referring to.

I think i have presented enough from the Bible.

That verse in Matthew pretty much says it all. If you imagine a girl, you are looking at her through your thoughts are you not?

Of course, if you truly love your wife, you are not looking at her in lust.

Also, i do not think i am really qualified to determine this at the moment, so input from other theists might be needed. But from what i can tell, this is what it looks like to me.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If you've never felt lust for your wife, you probably shouldn't have married her in the first place.

I am not married, and if i do get married it will not be over lust.

BTW...this is what I was talking about in the other thread last night. Scripture has been presented where the correct interpretation is a little ambiguous (ie. is "imagining" the same as "looking"? What qualifies as "lustfully"?), alternative interpretations are presented by Christians and non-Christians alike, and you respond by telling us that we're "only lying to ourselves" -- in other words, our interpretations are wrong and yours is right.

This is the kind of attitude from you and Pletho that pisses people off.

Matthew 5:27-28 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Matthew 5:31-32 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Note that the same Greek root word applies in all four translations (bolded).

Do you not plan on being sexually attracted to your wife?

I''m sorry Hopey but lusting for a person through a mirror is still lusting for that person, and if you disagree you are lying to yourself. Or you are just that desperately trying to prove theists wrong over every little thing.

I believe that Gunth's interpretation to these verses is that you need to imagine a woman "lustfully" in order to perform the act of masturbation to completion. By imagining a woman in this fashion, you are performing adultery.

Do you think i am wrong with this?

The moment you realize that these debates have NOTHING to do with theism the better off you'll be. Posters here would treat astrologers the same way, regardless of their religious affiliation.

As for you: Most of your arguments aren't stupid because they're theistic...they're stupid because they're stupid.

Depends on your definition of "lusting".

And it depends if looking at a REAL woman is considered as being the same as visualizing a woman in your mind.

(I mean, the woman you imagine might not even be real -- she could be some fantasy woman who you've never met.)

And there are plenty of theists who disagree with your interpretation. Don't try to turn this into an atheists vs. theists thing.

That is your opinion, but it is not based on anything.

Either of them?

It is the thought that counts. I think that verse makes it pretty clear.

Where are their posts?

It's not that I think you are wrong, it's that I understand that it's quite possible that you aren't completely right. The wording in the verses you are referring to is definitely open to alternative interpretations.

Do a Google search for Mathew 5:28. There are plenty of alternative explanations out there. You've just chosen to believe in the most conservative and restrictive interpretation.

hentai ftw

I may be missing something, but I am not understanding the significance of this. Could you clarify?

Here's the thing. If God created us, he knows all about the sex drive and how powerful it is. So it would come as no surprise to God that boys and girls from adolescence onward would experiment with masturbation, and that once they tried it, they'd like it. So if he wanted us not to do that (something we naturally enjoy and are going to want to do), the bible should be very specific about the prohibition. But it's not specific at all.

From dictionary.com:

Which definition of lust do you think that the verse is referring to? They're not all the same.

That's not what the text says. It says "looks". It doesn't say "imagines", it doesn't say "thinks about" -- it uses the word "looks".

Why is it that only your interpretation is correct? If anything, your interpretation that extends this verse to a prohibition against masturbation seems to require the greater stretch.

Did you miss Jibninjas posts? He's definitely a theist. I don't think that Concerto agrees with your interpretation either, and he's definitely a theist.

Do a quick Google search for Mathew 5:28. You'll find dozens of different interpretations for that one verse of scripture.

There are alternative explanations for just about anything and everything out there. Can you provide us with an explanation that you feel is better?