M
Methodi
Guest
Yes there is for sure, I wish I could remember where i read it, I tried to read the bible last night, But My eyes only let me read for a little while now, But its in there
- Status
D
distracted
Guest
well, here is a second person to say, officially, that it is NOT…
M
Methodi
Guest
I dont care what he says
L
Lucky7
Guest
Methodi,
Did you read what I added to my original post saying that the phrase was not in the Bible? The phrase is not, but it is based upon the rest of Tamar’s story…which is in the Bible.
Did you read what I added to my original post saying that the phrase was not in the Bible? The phrase is not, but it is based upon the rest of Tamar’s story…which is in the Bible.
So technically, you are wrong to say that the phrase comes from the Bible. Although I am not sure who coined the phrase, it is certainly understandable why it came to be considering the rest of the Onan-Tamar-Judah story.
D
distracted
Guest
E
excelsus
Guest
Roma locuta, causa finita.
M
Methodi
Guest
There is somewhere in the bible that phrase, I wish I knew exactly where I saw it, I would probably have to read the whole bible to find it But I am not doing that.
D
distracted
Guest
why not? don’t you want to learn the Bible?
if you go to Mass every day for 3 yrs, you will hear the whole thing…
and in 3 yrs, you can come back and tell us where this passage is…
M
Methodi
Guest
It`s in there, there is a lot of nasty stuff in the bible in the old testamentwhy not? don’t you want to learn the Bible?
if you go to Mass every day for 3 yrs, you will hear the whole thing…
and in 3 yrs, you can come back and tell us where this passage is…
M
MarieCB
Guest
That’s not in the Bible, but Augustine said something similar. He was talking about how the ONLY non-sinful reason to have sex was for procreation and that having sex for any other reason is “pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot” as long as it’s vaginal sex. But “when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman”
So unless it’s vaginal, procreative sex, it’s less sinful for a man to go to a prostitute.
Just Google Augustine and sex.
But I seriously don’t believe it’s in the Bible.
M
Methodi
Guest
I believe it is, wish I could put my finger on it, probably from the old testament, it`s definitely not something st Agustine saidThat’s not in the Bible, but Augustine said something similar. He was talking about how the ONLY non-sinful reason to have sex was for procreation and that having sex for any other reason is “pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot” as long as it’s vaginal sex. But “when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman”
So unless it’s vaginal, procreative sex, it’s less sinful for a man to go to a prostitute.
Just Google Augustine and sex.
But I seriously don’t believe it’s in the Bible.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Fortunately for us, the Bible is not the only source of Divine Revelation.That’s not in the Bible, but Augustine said something similar. He was talking about how the ONLY non-sinful reason to have sex was for procreation and that having sex for any other reason is “pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot” as long as it’s vaginal sex. But “when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman”
So unless it’s vaginal, procreative sex, it’s less sinful for a man to go to a prostitute.
Just Google Augustine and sex.
But I seriously don’t believe it’s in the Bible.
M
MnklyMRPD
Guest
Attention: Methodi, MarieCB and the rest…
The correct interpretation of this is this: If sex is non-procreative but vaginal…pardonable with the wife, but not with a harlot. If sex uses wife’s other body parts not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful if she allows this to be done to her, rather than another woman or a harlot. Therefore, the role of the WIFE in sex is more valued and highly placed than that of another woman or a harlot. The harlot can make her body parts be used in whatever way the user wants to use it without putting shame unto herself since she is a HARLOT after all, already immoral and a sinner, who is expected not to have shame anymore. But not in the case of a wife… if she still wants to be treated as a wife and not another harlot…Therefore, St. Augustine’s beliefs or whatever, never makes it less sinful for a man to go to a prostitute…
I mean, God sent Jesus Christ right? In Jesus, God made his additional but some new rules. There are no more violence, unlike in the old testament… and about sexuality… in all the 4 gospels, it clearly states that “it is better for a man to cast out his hand or eye (or whatever) if it sins…” (or something like this), and “it is better for a man to marry if he lusts… or whatever…”. And when he pardoned a prostitute with her sin, He clearly said “go but sin no more…”
So,
for Methodi:… God did not intentionally make prostitutes for men to have sexual relations out of marriage or out of self-control…
for MarieCB:…If I have a husband, I wouldn’t be suggesting to my husband the possibility of his brothers to have sex with me in case he dies, just because it happened in the old testament (although I believe you were only teasing then?)
for everybody else:… regardless of whether its in the bible or not, regardless of Tamar & Judah’s story, such things are not applicable anymore if we call ourselves Christians, since Christ’s teachings never subscribe to this…Christ’s morality on sexuality is very clear in the new testament, so whatever God did in the old testament is as good as “erased” already, if we believe that God and Jesus Christ are one and the same person, as Jesus Christ Himself said so…
Yes, if there are contradicting stories in the bible, its between some rules in the old and the new testaments…and sex morality rules are one of this.
I do believe that God did almost a 180 degree turnabout in some of his rules and ways between the old and the new testaments…
The red statement above, I think is a wrong interpretation. Take note that you said, quoting St. Augustine, “the only non-sinful reason to have sex was for procreation and that having sex for any other reason is **pardonable **in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot as long as its vaginal sex. But “when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman””.That’s not in the Bible, but Augustine said something similar. He was talking about how the ONLY non-sinful reason to have sex was for procreation and that having sex for any other reason is “pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot” as long as it’s vaginal sex. But “when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman”
So unless it’s vaginal, procreative sex, it’s less sinful for a man to go to a prostitute.
Just Google Augustine and sex.
But I seriously don’t believe it’s in the Bible.
The correct interpretation of this is this: If sex is non-procreative but vaginal…pardonable with the wife, but not with a harlot. If sex uses wife’s other body parts not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful if she allows this to be done to her, rather than another woman or a harlot. Therefore, the role of the WIFE in sex is more valued and highly placed than that of another woman or a harlot. The harlot can make her body parts be used in whatever way the user wants to use it without putting shame unto herself since she is a HARLOT after all, already immoral and a sinner, who is expected not to have shame anymore. But not in the case of a wife… if she still wants to be treated as a wife and not another harlot…Therefore, St. Augustine’s beliefs or whatever, never makes it less sinful for a man to go to a prostitute…
I mean, God sent Jesus Christ right? In Jesus, God made his additional but some new rules. There are no more violence, unlike in the old testament… and about sexuality… in all the 4 gospels, it clearly states that “it is better for a man to cast out his hand or eye (or whatever) if it sins…” (or something like this), and “it is better for a man to marry if he lusts… or whatever…”. And when he pardoned a prostitute with her sin, He clearly said “go but sin no more…”
So,
for Methodi:… God did not intentionally make prostitutes for men to have sexual relations out of marriage or out of self-control…
for MarieCB:…If I have a husband, I wouldn’t be suggesting to my husband the possibility of his brothers to have sex with me in case he dies, just because it happened in the old testament (although I believe you were only teasing then?)
for everybody else:… regardless of whether its in the bible or not, regardless of Tamar & Judah’s story, such things are not applicable anymore if we call ourselves Christians, since Christ’s teachings never subscribe to this…Christ’s morality on sexuality is very clear in the new testament, so whatever God did in the old testament is as good as “erased” already, if we believe that God and Jesus Christ are one and the same person, as Jesus Christ Himself said so…
Yes, if there are contradicting stories in the bible, its between some rules in the old and the new testaments…and sex morality rules are one of this.
I do believe that God did almost a 180 degree turnabout in some of his rules and ways between the old and the new testaments…
I
imasinner
Guest
Do yourself a favour and just google it. There is no such phrase in the bible. Your insistence on it being in the bible is perplexing as this is easily disproved just by googling your so called biblical phrase. It would only take a couple of minutes to prove your “critics” wrong
.We are spiritual beings in physical bodies not “sexual beings” as you have repeated like a mantra to prove the sinlessness in mastubation. “In heaven there is no marriage” so being sexual in the next life isnt likely unless Muslim brothers and sisters knows something we dont know
You are correct however in saying that there are many Catholics out there like yourself. I have moments when I fall into the same trap too. You know what the Church teachings are on faith and morality but you believe that YOUR understanding of faith and morals is more in tune with God will than the understanding of the Church PROMISED the PROTECTION and GUIDANCE of the Holy Spirit by none other than God-Incarnate, Jesus.
Hope you will come to see the error of your opinion
Praying for you pls pray for me 
God bless
M
MarieCB
Guest
It could well be, and I’m not arguing with you at all.
In fact, I know a young man who is studying theology, and he says that Augustine is very easy to misinterpret. He warned me to not read Augustine in sound bites. I’m not sure I agree with him, but I’m not a theology expert. I have a copy of Confessions, which I suppose I should try to read again. (I read it in university, but that was an eon ago.)However, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that people have taken just that interpretation from his passage. It’s the closest I can find for “better to have sex with a prostitute than to spill seed”. It certainly is NOT in the Bible (unless it’s in those extra Catholic books?)
I certainly wasn’t teasing him in the sense of implying that it would ever happen. It was more to try and get him to realize just how alien that long-ago culture is to us. Let’s just say that I’m really, really, really glad that I’d never be in that situation. One of his brothers has Ausperger’s and the other is an antisocial jerk.
M
MnklyMRPD
Guest
For Methodi specially… the quote above I guess should give you some rest already as per your masturbation, prostitute invention and bible contradictories issues… I am far from being an authority on these issues but my new testament learnings are, I guess, just enough to convince me of my sinfulness…
Many of God’s ways are hard… I also struggle like you and the rest… but I never try to rationalize or justify my sinful deeds beyond my understanding of the new testament. I only say sorry… I am only a human being, still trapped in such a weak physical being… I have yet to be perfect just as God wants us to be perfect… but, until then, I can only utter “sorry” for as many times as Christ’s number in the new testament of pardoning a person who asks for our forgiveness…
Its hard to forgive one’s self, I tell you… but if we are Christ’s students (as we claim to be), we have to ask forgiveness from ourself and allow ourself to forgive our own self too. Coz if we don’t, then the evil will truly damn us. Hopelessness is after all an evil’s craft… and denying or pretending that we are not sinners… that we are always right, is also an evil’s way of drawing us out from true closeness with God…
And yes, thank you to those who have (name removed by moderator)utted here many times the idea that real closeness with God can only be achieved through purity of heart and of thoughts - free of
sensualities, lustful deeds & thoughts and whatever else related. I think, such an idea has already settled well in my mind. You know, our Lord Saviour Jesus Christ may not have been so particular about “physical cleanliness” alright, but didn’t he say that children… innocent, pure and clean in thoughts… are the greatest in the kingdom of God? We may not try to become like these children and be the greatest in the kingdom of God, but take note that Christ said, " I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me…" So, here’s the catch. Even if we don’t ambitioned to be the greatest in the kingdom of God but simply work to be able to enter it and be welcomed in it when we die, still, it is not easy, what with Jesus Christ’s rules and ways…
But then again, if we claim to be Christians, there it is… the guidelines are laid down… It is hard but it is not forced upon us. God never forces… He only convinces, through examples and the likes and he persists on it, what with His Divine Mercy and our Blessed Mother Mary’s persistent rosary prayer, until perhaps, we also make a complete 180 degrees turnabout from our sinfulness and be truly like Him…
Maybe hard but achievable, if we are probably that determined and our environment and/or resources are also conducive to it (weak as we are)… Very conditional, isn’t it? I guess I’m far from being a saint, much less be a good Jesus Christ’s follower… but I’m trying…almost always…
M
MnklyMRPD
Guest
I certainly wasn’t teasing him in the sense of implying that it would ever happen. It was more to try and get him to realize just how alien that long-ago culture is to us. Let’s just say that I’m really, really, really glad that I’d never be in that situation. One of his brothers has Ausperger’s and the other is an antisocial jerk.
LOL . You are funny! Well, after all this… its nice to have a big laugh alright… thanks…
D
distracted
Guest
assumig Augustine really said this… I disagree with him on 2 counts… One, i do NOT believe having sex for reasons other than procreation is sinful or in any way something that needs “pardoning”…There is nothing wrong with having sex just because you want to be intimate with the spouse you love… and i know the Church teaches this…That’s not in the Bible, but Augustine said something similar. He was talking about how the ONLY non-sinful reason to have sex was for procreation and that having sex for any other reason is “pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot” as long as it’s vaginal sex. But “when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman”
So unless it’s vaginal, procreative sex, it’s less sinful for a man to go to a prostitute.
Just Google Augustine and sex.
But I seriously don’t believe it’s in the Bible.
not everything a saint says is “infallible”…
The 2nd thing is: Even if this a word-for-word what Augustine said, i don’t believe you are interpretin it correctly… for one thing, where is the mention of a prostitute in his wriitngs… (alleged writings)? frankly, the wording is deplorable… inarticulate… makes no sense… so maybe i need not bother answering… I’ll just get myself into some… weird argument or something…
In any case, the Bible doesn’t say this and i am sure St. A didn’t either…
i have seen no proof…(concernign the latter)
M
MarieCB
Guest
Glad someone got the joke.
(Not that it’s much of a joke - autism spectrum disease clearly runs in the family)
M
MarieCB
Guest
Yet Augustine, and a number of the early church fathers very clearly did. The only good, he says, that comes from the evil of sex, is procreation. I only looked him up because so many people here quote him as though he wrote the Gospel.
Well, you’ve got no argument on that from me! Then again, I don’t believe that any person is infallible. However, I don’t think much of what I’ve been reading by Augustine.
A harlot is a prostitute. Or do you know some other definition for harlot?
Yes, the writing is hard to understand. Perhaps that’s, in part, from being translated from Latin to English? I don’t know. I’ve read some papal bulls from a thousand years ago that were just as convoluted and hard to understand.
When Mnkly said she thought the interpretation was wrong, I acknowledged that could very well be AND that I wasn’t arguing with her at all - AND that a theology student I know says that Augustine is very, very easy to misunderstand, especially in sound bites.
Me ← completely fallible human being.
Augustine ← very confusing writer.
I was specifically saying that there’s nothing like that in the Bible.
The CLOSEST that I could find to it was that passage by Augustine. I wasn’t saying “See? He hates women and sex!” (although I believe he does), I was saying “Okay, this is similar enough that it could be why someone would say the expression Methodi mentioned is from the Bible.” Considering the number of people who insist that “God helps those who helps themselves”, “Beggars can’t be choosers”, and “Cleanliness is next to Godliness” are in the Bible, it seems quite reasonable that someone who read some of Augustine would get slightly mixed up. I mean, it sounds like something that could come from the Bible.
And when you combine the story of Tamar plus the passages from Augustine, it becomes even more plausible.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.v.ii.xii.html
and ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.v.ii.xiii.html - On The Good of Marriage, by Augustine, sections 11 and 12
All you had to do was Google the passages I quoted and you would have found the entire thing. In fact, here are all of his writings, I think: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.toc.html
- Status