So, does this mean any screenshot of an onion headline is a meme now?
alwwys_has_been.png
So he doesn’t actually practice Christianity, then. He just uses it as an accessory.
Most do.
An awful lot of people identify as Christians while ignoring the calls for charity and compassion and being wary of hoarding wealth.
Enough folk to say that greed and cruelty are in fact Christian values for some Christians.
And you’re not going to be able to convince any of them they’re not really all that Christian.
It really doesn’t take many verses to convince somebody who truly believes in God and believes Jesus died for their sins.
Just because there is propaganda doesn’t mean that it is ironclad. And it’s not “Source: Trust me bro”, it’s “Source: Jesus and his disciples”.
It’s source: Jesus and his disciples as compiled decades later with some efforts at editing and revision. (e.g. Proverbs is allegedly sourced from Paul even though the scholarly consensus is that it’s counterfeit, and written after Paul by a ghostwriter.)
The bible is not univocal, not inerrant and not divinely inspired, so, as scholar Dan McClellan notes, every Christian has to negotiate with the text to arrive at doctrinal mores and values they agree with.
Ultimately, the bible can be used to justify anything, and it is!
Considering the most obvious biblical take on slavery and on women, the bible isn’t that great a source for personal and social values to begin with.
My point stands. Real Christians would pay attention to Christ - they see the source as valid. Of course the texts have been manipulated over many years - and have less than ideal takes on slavery and on women.
Fortunately, Christ’s teachings are still pretty clear and are easily quotable and digestible. It’s harder to twist Jesus to serve hateful narratives than it is to quote Jesus and the love he obviously taught.
You don’t have to twist Jesus to make him seem like a bastard. He kinda preaches love, sometimes, but also preaches doing a bunch of shitty, immature, and sometimes downright heinous shit.
Surely there are examples (of which I am aware of a few), but they do not take from his overall teachings. I’m not the devoted Christian that the other commenter mistakenly views me as, but someone who understands the gist of the New Testament because I was forced into Christian High School and studied the Bible as a whole. It was a subject that I was graded on, so I’d like to say I probably understand the general themes better than most.
Although I do repress a lot from that time and I suffered multiple TBIs, so maybe I’m completely off-base. I don’t believe that I am, though.
The gist of the New Testament is “everyone thinks the old God is vengeful and mean, so we’re gonna send a new one down to rehab his image, but in reality, he’s (literally) still the same old vengeful bastard who condones violence, rape, and killing, but somehow got billions of people to look the other way on that because he says love thy neighbor once”
That’s what I get from my reading of it anyways
e.g. Proverbs is allegedly sourced from Paul even though the scholarly consensus is that it’s counterfeit, and written after Paul by a ghostwriter.
Proverbs is Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and attributed to King Solomon, not Paul.
This no true scotsman does not actually help anyone as it allows people to completely skirt the problems with religion by ignoring any symptoms as incorrect practices.
In reality, all religious people are cherry picking. Its inherent unless you want to live like a caveman. Can you imagine if people actually did all of the things prescribed at various points of the bible?
No cooking, washing dishes, doing chores on saturdays, no eating pork, no mixed fabric clothing, having slaves and concubines, not taking loans etc etc.
People like to pretend the bible is all well and good because they sanitize the hell out of it, only pay attention to very carefully worded and translated 10 commandments, ignore the first half, and then a huge chunk of the second half and call it good.
In reality, unless we dismiss basically every Christian as non Christian, we have no reason to dismiss bad people who are Christians as non Christians.
They’re just bad people who are also Christians, and a good chunk of the times, it is where that Christianity, the logic required to stay with it, and the social situations that occur as a result in weaker resistance to awful ideologies, charlatans etc.
I don’t feel that it’s a very high standard to ask that Christians follow Jesus Christ’s example and demonstrate understanding of his teachings - especially if they are truly Christians, who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Many of the practices and laws you mentioned are fulfilled in the New Testament and are no longer binding to Christians.
And there are surely many people (especially in power) who use Christianity as an accessory, as a tool to manipulate others into hate, and as a platform to grow their power. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mike Johnson was one such example.
Many of the practices and laws you mentioned
This is just “I cherry pick differently for equally arbitrary reasons and am therefor the arbiter of what qualifies as truly Christian”. The fact you say mostly really hammers that in. Like you feel you’re more “Christian” than them to a degree that matters.
And there are surely many people (especially in power) who use Christianity as an accessory, as a tool to manipulate others into hate, and as a platform to grow their power.
Yeah, like literally the leaders of every sect out there…
I wouldn’t be surprised if Mike Johnson was one such example.
Doesn’t mean he isn’t Christian though, unless you also don’t think the pope is…
In fact this is exactly why its important not to separate these people out. These are fellow Christians that the non wealthy and powerful ?Christians lower their guards to due to religious belief.
This is just “I cherry pick differently for equally arbitrary reasons and am therefor the arbiter of what qualifies as truly Christian”. The fact you say mostly really hammers that in. Like you feel you’re more “Christian” than them to a degree that matters.
I invite you to do more research on this. It’s not cherry picking, I assure you.
Yeah, like literally the leaders of every sect out there…
There are plenty of denominations and sects of Christianity out there that don’t teach hate. Why wouldn’t there be? Jesus taught love.
Doesn’t mean he isn’t Christian though, unless you also don’t think the pope is…
Anybody can claim to be whatever they want to. If somebody is doing the direct opposite of what Jesus taught while deferring to the Bible like Mike Johnson, I’d argue that they aren’t following Jesus or are like him. I’d argue that Mike Johnson is closer to the Pharisees that Jesus notably had issues with, than a Christian.
Christ + ian (from, related to, or like)
I believe that the pope is a Christian though, and clearly other people do too - otherwise he likely wouldn’t be the pope.
Why are you defending Mike Johnson? Feel free to respond with a rebuttal, but you won’t be getting anything else out of me.
I invite you to do more research on this. It’s not cherry picking, I assure you.
You quite literally confirm that you are cherry picking by acknowledging that indeed there are ridiculous rules and guidance that are in the bible that you don’t follow. You therefore would inherently be cherry picking if you did not follow every single one of them or, to give you as fair a shake as possible, the vast majority of them.
There are plenty of denominations and sects of Christianity out there that don’t teach hate. Why wouldn’t there be? Jesus taught love.
That’s a nice idea in theory, but plenty doesn’t mean most, and I think most would be false which is why you went with plenty.
Most sects of Christianity, at some point, due to the fact their morals were roughly frozen about a millennia ago, will inevitably run into some pretty backwards points of view that don’t really have any basis in compassion or empathy and end up either creating out groups to be looked down upon, undue pressure on members, or discriminatory views against marginalized people.
More than any of that, the very fact that its all based on belief based on faith, believing without knowing, means that a critical vulnerability is inherently open the second you allow that belief in.
If you can believe anything without any evidence, then its suddenly a lot easier to believe other things for the same reasons as well. After all, your indoctrination (as most people are indoctrinated as children), will have tried to disarm your attempts to reason your way out of believing without evidence.
Anybody can claim to be whatever they want to. If somebody is doing the direct opposite of what Jesus taught while deferring to the Bible like Mike Johnson, I’d argue that they aren’t following Jesus or are like him. I’d argue that Mike Johnson is closer to the Pharisees that Jesus notably had issues with, than a Christian.
I would argue most Christians, yourself included don’t actually qualify as Christians if we go down this line of thought to its logical conclusion.
I believe that the pope is a Christian though, and clearly other people do too - otherwise he likely wouldn’t be the pope.
Why do you believe a position that is in charge of covering up the sexual abuse of minors, and causing an aids epidemic in Africa is any more Christian than Mike Johnson, someone who is guilty of supporting the current American fascist regime?
They both have done heinous and reprehensible acts, yet we allow the Pope position to be qualified as Christian because they are traditionally good at weaponized civility?
Why are you defending Mike Johnson?
Not a single thing I have said could possibly be read to be defending Mike Johnson, and as such I can’t read what you’ve written here as anything but the most clear evidence of bad faith.
Feel free to respond with a rebuttal, but you won’t be getting anything else out of me.
This is to be expected behaviour with such a ridiculous strawman argument at the end there.
If your views are so fragile that you must lie about the point of view of the person you are arguing with, self reflection is the only remedy.
Not a single thing I have said could possibly be read to be defending Mike Johnson, and as such I can’t read what you’ve written here as anything but the most clear evidence of bad faith.
You are defending his supposed faith and his identification as a Christian, when it couldn’t be further from the truth.
From my point of view, you are either following Christ’s teachings or you are not. A true Christian would resonate with Christ’s teachings and be demonstrating them - not demonstrating the opposite and twisting Jesus’ teachings from a position of power. I don’t believe Mike Johnson is a sheep led astray or someone has been manipulated into hate, but someone who is empowered by hate, who thrives on his authority, and is a person who literally says he believes God elevated him specifically into authority.
You assume bad faith from me and good faith from Mike Johnson (by taking him at his word that he is a Christian) - a person who has shown they are not in good faith to anybody honestly looking.
You are defending his supposed faith and his identification as a Christian, when it couldn’t be further from the truth.
The fact you think or are willing to lie to pretend you believe that rebutting your no true scotsman argument is somehow a defence of this man is telling.
It’s either that you see being Christian as being a compliment, which by itself shows a feeling of superiority to those who are not Christian, or you feel that him being Christian somehow means something greater at large that you would rather not discuss.
From my point of view, you are either following Christ’s teachings or you are not.
That can be your point of view, but your point of view would be (by your own admission) cherry picked and based on whatever set of rules you decided fit within a book filled with rules and contradictions to those rules.
A true Christian would resonate with Christ’s teachings and be demonstrating them - not teaching the opposite and twisting Jesus’ teachings from a position of power.
There are almost certainly people with different views than you who run the same line, in fact, I am sure of it, because I’ve seen it multiple times.
I don’t believe Mike Johnson is a sheep led astray or someone has been manipulated into hate, but someone who is empowered by hate, who thrives on his authority, and is a person who literally believes God elevated him specifically into authority.
What you let loose at the end, is the idea that you think that Mike Johnson holds his beliefs vehemently, and that you belief he thinks he is doing as is right by god.
How then, can you call him any more or less Christian than yourself or anyone else if from his point of view, picking and choosing what he sees fit, he is a Christian?
If there are no hard qualifiers, as you admit there are not, as the religion and the various sects are largely based on interpretations of a book translated and added to multiple times over thousands of years, how can you disqualify so easily when convenient to you?
Personally, I don’t think most of the people leading any given religion actually believes in the core beliefs of said religion, as doing so would make it harder to change as needed, but you seem to think opposite, which oddly conflicts with the whole angle you are going for of them not being real Christians.
You assume bad faith from me and good faith from Mike Johnson, a person who has shown they are not in good faith on many different occasions.
I don’t assume bad faith from you, the evidence demonstrates it. Here you are again, outright lying about my point of view because you can’t really argue on the other points; the points of contention.
To assert that I, someone who you can see clearly is progressive, supports progressive policies and finds what is happening abhorrent align with Mike Johnson in any way, just because I did not let your fallacious dismissal of that which you think “hurts” your religion slide can’t be be seen as anything else.
That’s a pretty broad brushing of a diverse religious group. It sounds like you’re clumping in Catholics with everyone else. Catholics are all about casting people out of the church for not being catholic enough and not so much for sexual predators. But there’s so many small churches based on Christianity, so many different practices…. You just lumped them all together with your grievances with the Catholic Church. It gives intolerance, kind of hypocritical.
That’s a pretty broad brushing of a diverse religious group.
That’s a ridiculous assertion. I’m sure the follow up sentence ought completely clear up what you must mean here
It sounds like you’re clumping in Catholics with everyone else.
What in the world???
Are you really taking my very obvious example of a person no one would argue is not Christian, to imply that every Christian must somehow be Catholic?
I cant even begin to see how you misinterpreted my comment in that way.
You just lumped them all together with your grievances with the Catholic Church. It gives intolerance, kind of hypocritical.
I did no such thing, and I refuse to believe that you think I did, given that this example couldn’t be any clearer.
Its especially ridiculous given my example is used as a means to establish that the definition of Christian is indeed far wider not narrower than the poster I responded to.
This is precisely the opposite of your claim of me narrowing the definition of Christianity with that example. It’s uttterly backwards.
deleted by creator
this was posted on political memes, and you can literally see the onion logo in the image
So much more satisfying when he finally does since it’s forbidden.
“my Christian faith is more about telling my son when I jack off than feeding the poor.”
Ftfy
This isn’t satire. Do we need to start posting onion articles in “not the onion”?
Yep, this is accurate if it weren’t written as a quote. Since it is it’s satire but, as with all great satire, based in fact.
Satire doesn’t require falsehood or exaggeration.
In this case, the two parts of that statement (“My religion is opposed to jacking off”, “I don’t care about feeding the poor”) aren’t usually made explicit or said together. By saying the quiet parts out loud and putting them in direct juxtaposition, this headline calls him out on his hypocrisy.
What you’re referring to is parody. Satire is exactly like this.
Unfortunately, Mike Johnson cannot orgasm unless he thinks about starving orphans and dead puppies and shit.
Honestly, I’d believer it. What a horrible sack of shit.
Does the Bible mention masturbation? I know it promotes feeding the poor for sure…
Does the Bible mention masturbation?
I am not a Bible expert, but every time I’ve heard people talk about it, they reference an Old Testament story where a man’s close female relative (I think his brother’s widow or something like that?) tries to seduce him after her husband dies, but then he lets his seed spill to the ground instead of impregnating her, and this displeases God.
The story is obviously about him not fulfilling his familial duties, but modern Christians pretend it’s about making sure you only ejaculate when there’s a chance of reproducing.
Onan is supposed to impregnate Tamar, the widow of his brother. The ancient Hebrews practiced levirate marriage, where if a woman’s husband died before giving her a son, her brother in law was supposed to impregnate her so that she could have some claim to inheritance/not be left destitute.
Onan didn’t want to impregnate her, because he didn’t want to share the inheritance. So he pulled out and was killed for being a shitty person. Trying to get the O but not the responsibility. Absolutely nothing to do with masturbation.
Later, Tamar is supposed to marry the last brother, but Judah, her father-in-law is freaked out about giving her his last son, worried that he is going to end up getting killed somehow too. So he tells Tamar to go back home and wait. Tamar eventually gets sick of this, dresses up as a prostitute and gets Judah to impregnate her.
every sperm is sacred
when just one is wasted God gets quite irate
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can’t be foundEvery sperm is sacred
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood!I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts There they are, all standing in a row Big ones, small ones, some as big as your head Give them a twist a flick of the wrist That's what the showman said
That tracks after I got caught with a stash of sears catalog rip-outs and my catholic mom guilt-tripped me lol.
Neither of us are religious now so it’s kind of funny on hindsight at least.
Well, (not a Christian) as I understand it the whole “don’t masturbate” comes from the story of Onan. Onan was some rando who had his brother die and as such he was obligated to impregnate his brothers wife (as was the fashion at the time) so his son by his brothers wife would be the heir of his bother… I’m sure it made sense at the time.
Instead Onan decides to practice “pull out” contraception so he can keep fucking both his own wife and his brothers wife too. This pisses off God and he gets all smite-y on Onan.
This gets interpreted as either “Masturbation is a sin” or “Give you brother an heir” or “Don’t defy gods cucking fetish” depending on which sect you talk to.
. ………seriously? First off; what a wild ass story. Second, how on earth can masturbation be the takeaway? Religion is so weird.
It’s more “don’t defy God” in this story.
That’s basically what ALL of the old testament and ridiculous amounts of the new one boil down to, though 🤷
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell.
Matthew 5:27-30
If not masturbation itself, certainly porn and fantasizing would be condemned by Jesus.
I have yet to see an english translation that isn’t terrible, but only the worst and most unreliable use the word “hell.” The actual word is Gehenna, a real place that was considered cursed, desecrated, and very undesirable. It does not mean “hell” in the way any modern reader would picture it, as that concept does not exist anywhere in Jewish or Christian scripture. It is a pagan addition.
The word “lust” here also does not mean “horny” it means “covet.” It means an overwhelming desire to possess something. The word “woman” also properly means “married woman” and not just “any woman.” Jesus is not talking about fantasizing, but about a desire with intent to take something that belongs to someone else, inflicting harm.
Seems extreme. Maybe we should just throw the entire bible out.
Some serious nofap cult logic.
I wonder if Mr Jonson would kill an Amalek on sight, as the LORD commanded Christians to do. I wonder if he thinks this is in fact what President Trump and Bibi are actually doing.
(for context: Amalekites are a tribe) Numbers 14:25
the Amalekites and the Canaanites live in the valleys
(… that God really fucking did not like) Samuel 15:2-3
This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants
I mean yeah, these types of verses are 100% used to understand and condone the slaughter of Palestinians.
Personally? No way, that weasels sack of shit couldn’t do his own dirty work, but I’m sure he delights in seeing anyone who isn’t white and Christian die. Women and children are no obstacle for this filth.
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.
– Steven Weinberg (RIP)
I think that’s a great quote and the man had numerous scientific accomplishments, but as a supporter of Israel he also said (of Britain’s Israeli boycott):
“Given the history of the attacks on Israel and the oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a moral blindness for which it is hard to find any explanation other than antisemitism.”
I think the quote is overrated, honestly. There are a lot of times that a “good” person may do “evil” without religion.
Probably the most famous example comes from the Milgram experiment. All that’s required is an authority figure to tell people to do evil and they’ll do it.
And if you study behavioral economics, you’ll find out that a lot of people tend to cheat and steal just a little bit.
Another time is when there is a conflict of interests. I forget the exact quote, but it is said that it will be impossible to get a person to understand something when their pay requires them not to understand it.
I’d love to see a repeat of the Millgram experiment, but with religious people in one group and non-religious people in the other.
I wonder which more readily abdicate their moral decision-making
hes trumps mouthpiece.
wanna bet he doesnt know what amalek is.
Isn’t that the stone head in Legends of the Hidden Temple?
The line I remember from the bible being attributed to “masturbation=bad” is:
“It is better to spill your seed in the belly of a prostitute than it is upon the ground.”
But that really could be interpreted as to the usefulness of reproduction or pleasure and not really a condemnation of jerking it. Like, it sure is better. But I dont have money for a prostitute so the ground will have to do 🤷♂️
Or maybe just don’t ejaculate on the ground you filthy bastard. I’m sure they had like leaves or something if they couldn’t afford tissues.
moneybags in the bible can afford hookers.
In like 3 separate piles?
unless he surveys the patrons on grindr, or porn.
Didn’t really expect your “christian faith” to be anything even close to the actual christ-based teaching. Evil shit
Mental illness should not be a basis for a political system.
You’re obviously a woke antifa terrorist!
Whatever, I’m pretty sure he’s rubbing one out nightly to the thoughts of starving brown children.
Republicans have crossed from common faith to demon worship.
No, theyre just common christians. Its an evil self-serving religion with a vaneer of kindness.
Its been my go to theory for years now. If god and the devil exist then the devils greatest trick was to convince christians that it was god and trump is their christ. Or as all the real christians call him the anti-christ.
I had this thought a few years ago when some god botherer wouldn’t shut up and used that ignorant line about the devils greatest trick was to convince humanity that it didn’t exist. I said that isn’t a very good trick and expanded that the best kind of trick would be to convince humanity that it was god so every time people said praise god they would really be praising the devil.
I didn’t not make a friend that day but at least that sad sack of shit shut up and left me alone.
Edit: that not they
Even better part of your statement… it checks out theologically. The bible actually specifically says that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. and it specifically predicts the antichrist specifically will convince people that he is holy, and people who think they are doing god’s work will follow him.
That’s fucking metal
Of course not they find minor children to do that for them. In his case young boys. After all it is the party of indecency.
Does the Bible even masturbation is wrong?
Not really. It was God killing a guy named Onan for doing his pull-out game instead of nutting in his wife. It “spilled on the ground” so it says and it angered God. Other than that, and in the most explicit terms, no.
And it wasn’t even about it going on the ground or whatever it was about him failing his duty to impregnate his brother’s widow, which was expected of him. Sounds bizarre today but due to the rules of inheritance at that time, it was considered a service to the widow.
Came to say, Onan was commanded to impregnate her. The story has zero to do with masturbation.
Neither atheists nor believers get the basic mythology of their region.
Nu uh, next thing you are going to say is “If a man also lie with mankind” isn’t about homosexuality.
Not homosexuality as we would understand it. The Hebrew Bible doesn’t understand consensual male-on-male sex as being a thing. It’s envisioning the Bronze Age practice of raping men you defeat in war. The idea of someone being homosexual and having consensual gay sex would be alien to the ancient Hebrews.
Homosexuality has always existed. It was never an issue until Christians made it one.
People being attracted to the same gender have always existed, but the social identity of being “homosexual” or “gay” has not always existed. The ancient Hebrews would not have understood it to be possible for men to have consensual desires for each other. Often times throughout western history, male same sex desire was understood as an “excess” of sexual desire. It wasn’t understood that you could be exclusively attracted to the same sex - the idea did not exist in our cultural milieu until the 19th century.
Christianity is not the only religion that is anti-gay. A Buddhist might have a similar understanding to that western ancient/medieval understand of homosexuality I described earlier - that it is a harmful excess of sexual desire and hampers one’s progress towards separateness from the world. Confucianism would see exclusively same sex attraction as being harmful towards one’s obligation to continuing a family line.
I think it was his brother’s wife.
Honestly, pornhub needs to do a whole series of Bible porn.
maybe its doing it 2 woman at once? or being unfaithful?
I mean, God being mad that you’re spilling your jizz on the ground instead of inside of a woman to impregnate her, it is fairly straight conclusion to masturbation being no-no imo
It has nothing to do with masturbation or even pulling out, it was about a weird inheritance law of the time, and about not obeying god.
Once she was pregnant (and thus could inherit, or some ancient nonsense like that) Onan would have been free to jack it off as much as he wanted to (not that he seemed to want to, as I understand it what wanted was to keep fucking the sister in law, which he wouldn’t have been able to do after she got pregnant, since getting her pregnant was the only excuse for fucking her in the first place).
Do you have some materila to support that interpretation? Because a straight reading of the part imo does make it about wasting seed insted of procreating and the interpretations I can find go with that interpretation.
It seems to be a contentious issue, though it is easy for me to see how it is viewed as being about masturbation and sex for fun
Because a straight reading of the part imo does make it about wasting seed insted of procreating and the interpretations I can find go with that interpretation.
History? Mesopotamian history? It wouldn’t be an individual’s personal reaction to one of the english translations of the text.
There’s a great deal of information, especially from greek and persian sources that describe the rules and laws of the region during biblical times. Like the septanguit was a major greek translation that entered judean laws and customs to greek analysis.
And then we have early roman history that conquered the region and documented the rules of local religions/cults.
Again, it isn’t derived from a vibe check of plain text like when SCOTUS overturns human rights.
I read it in Finnish. And the different versions I checked (for English too) do try to follow the intended meaning instead of straight up literal translation. Don’t know about “SCOTUS” stuff.
The understanding of it talking about masturbation is pretty damn old and there’s a reason even scholars disagree about this stuff.
Just saying.
I get it. I had meant ‘modern’ more than anything and ‘english’ was the convenient assumption.
I was trying note along the idea of how we only know Spartan history from Athenian accounts of Sparta, not Spartans. If all we had was specifically a christian interpretation of the texts then yeah, conclusions can be as varied as the reader. If we interpret the bible through contemporary historical observations the importance of the lessons and stories of the bible are provided context.
The christian traditions around the bible and the historical context through which the bible was written and interpreted are very different.
But that isn’t to undermine or remove the fact that there is a long tradition of interpreting these passages as to include masturbation. (If not the concept of sodomy at large.) But to me that’s likewise as understandably contexualized.
Sorts of, if you take it out of context
IIRC, it was more about a guy refusing to sleep with his dead brothers wife (now his) and very situational. So he’s getting told off for not sleeping with his obligatory wife, and the quote is something along the lines of it would be better for you to spill your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it on the ground
It wasn’t even about masturbation really, that was just a slick line
Maybe not, but the Bible does say a lot about lust.
But what if it’s not about lust, and mostly a “I’ve got about 5 minutes and am pretty bored”.
He should at least try to feed the poor Corn Flakes then.
My religion is more about my son, my accountability partner, monitoring me jacking off.
