After All (The Dead)

So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day. Moses was 120 years old when he died. His eye was undimmed, and his vigor unabated. And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days. Then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended. And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him. So the people of Israel obeyed him and did as the LORD had commanded Moses. And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and the wonders that the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty power and all the great deeds of terror that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.
(Deuteronomy 34:5-12 ESV)

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
(Jude 1:9 KJV)

What did Satan want with the body of Moses? A possible object of idolatry, or perhaps he intended to resurrect him in order to lead the Children of Israel astray.

In some sense, Michael the Archangel was dispatched by God to deal in some way with the body of Moses, which God Himself had buried after Moses’ death.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all reject cremation in general as desecration of the human body. In some cultures embalming the body and applying makeup are discouraged as desecration as well.

John MacArthur notes that, “Scripture says nothing about a required mode of burial for either believers or non-believers.  However, burying the body was the standard practice among the Israelites in the Old Testament and Christians in the New Testament.

King Solomon wrote, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7 KJV).

The Apostle Paul wrote, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him” (Romans 6:3-9 KJV).

Two things to remember when considering the Scriptures is that most of the key people in the Old Testament were buried. In fact, it was considered a dishonor to the people of Israel not to receive a proper burial. Most of the people who were burned to death in the Bible were receiving a punishment.

In his first epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 15:12-58 KJV).

The body is like a seed and somehow it is important to God. We plant the corruptible so that Jesus Christ can harvest the incorruptible.

In his first epistle to the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul wrote, “But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 KJV).

You are not your own. Your body was bought for the great price of Jesus Christ’s blood, so you should glorify God in your body, whether by life or death. God owned you as His creature, and but He also owns you by having bought you from your sins. You do not glorify God by burning His creation in a pagan practice from hell.

• Cremation: What Does God Think?

I prefer burial. However, I must hold this preference only as an opinion. I do not know of any Biblical truth which would make cremation within itself sinful. If you know of such a truth, please share it with me. We must allow liberty when there is no binding teaching (Galatians 2:3-4).

An Eye for an Eye

And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.
(Leviticus 24:19-22 KJV)

This piece of legislation sounds barbaric and inhumane to many modern people. And until rather recently scholars tended to interpret it in terms of the practice reflecting a very early stage in the development of the Hebrew legal system.

Fortunately, archaeological discoveries have unearthed legal materials from the ancient Near East that have facilitated a better understanding of this piece of legislation than can be found in more recent commentaries on the Tanakh and Torah.

The meaning of the principle, an eye for an eye, is that a person who has injured another person is similarly injured in retribution, or according to other interpretations receives the value of the injury in compensation.

The phrase, “an eye for an eye” is a quotation from several passages of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) which means that a person who has injured the eye of another, either literally has his own eye injured as punishment, or according to other interpretations is instructed to pay the monetary value of an eye as compensation. It defined and restricted the extent of retribution in the laws of the Torah.

The English word “talion” means a punishment identical to the offense, from the Latin “talio”. The principle of “an eye for an eye” is often referred to using the Latin phrase “lex talionis,“ the law of talion.

• Encyclopaedia Britannica: Lex Talionis

The principal of lex talionis is found in three passages of the Tanakh, all of which occur inside the Torah.

• If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
  (Exodus 21:22-25 KJV)
• And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.
  (Leviticus 24:19-22 KJV)
• And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
  (Deuteronomy 19:18-21 KJV)

A similar law is found in the ancient Mesopotamian “Code of Hammurabi.” Earlier codes legislated financial compensation for bodily injuries, but Hammurabi seems to have been the first to require physical injury for physical injury. This has led some historians to conclude that there was a time when monetary compensation redressed personal injuries because the state did not consider them to be crimes against society.

• Hammurabi’s Code: An Eye for an Eye

This law of equivalency was a significant development in the history of jurisprudence in the sense that what used to be a private matter between two families was now taken over by the state and considered to be criminal behavior. This fits very well with the Tanakh understanding of offenses against others as offenses against the covenant community and against the God (YHWH) of the covenant.

The term lex talionis does not always and only refer to literal eye-for-an-eye codes of justice but applies to the broader class of legal systems that specify formulaic penalties for specific crimes, which are thought to be fitting in their severity. Some propose that this was at least in part intended to prevent excessive punishment at the hands of either an avenging private party or the state. The most common expression of lex talionis is “an eye for an eye”, but other interpretations have been given as well. Legal codes following the principle of lex talionis have one thing in common: prescribed ‘fitting’ counter punishment for an offence. In the famous legal code written by Hammurabi, the principle of exact reciprocity is very clearly used. For example, if a person caused the death of another person, the killer would be put to death (Hammurabi’s code, §230).

Under the right conditions, such as the ability for all actors to participate in an iterative fashion, the “eye for an eye” punishment system has a mathematical basis in the tit for tat game theory strategy.

The simplest example is the “eye for an eye” principle. In that case, the rule was that punishment must be exactly equal to the crime. Conversely, the twelve tables of Rome merely prescribed particular penalties for particular crimes. The Anglo-Saxon legal code substituted payment of wergild for direct retribution: a particular person’s life had a fixed value, derived from his social position; any homicide was compensated by paying the appropriate wergild, regardless of intent. Under the British Common Law, successful plaintiffs were entitled to repayment equal to their loss (in monetary terms). In the modern tort law system, this has been extended to translate non-economic losses into money as well. The meaning of the principle Eye for an Eye is that a person who has been injured by another person returns the offending action to the originator in compensation, or that an authority does so on behalf of the injured person. The exact Latin (lex talionis) to English translation of this phrase is actually “The law of retaliation.” At the root of this principle is that one of the purposes of the law is to provide equitable retribution for an offended party.

It’s difficult to determine to what extent this legislation was strictly enforced. We do know that in the case of murder the life of the murderer was taken (life for life). But apart from this, the formulation “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” etc., seems to have been a technical phrase used to express the idea of equivalency, leaving the court to determine the nature and extent of the equivalence.

Since there is no form of punishment in the Torah that calls for the maiming of an offender, there is no case where a conspiratorial false witness could possibly be punished by the court injuring to his eye, tooth, hand, or foot. There is no verse that even appears to mandate injury to the eye, tooth, or foot. Thus, it is impossible to read “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” literally in the context of a conspiratorial witness.

The Union of Orthodox Congregations says, “The Oral Law explains, based upon the biblical verses, that the Bible mandates a sophisticated five-part monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for “Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish” — which underlies many modern legal codes. Some rabbinic literature explains, moreover, that the expression, “An eye for an eye, etc.” suggests that the perpetrator deserves to lose his own eye, but that biblical law treats him leniently.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. had dissented from the actual practice of reciprocal justice. He stated, “The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.” Likewise, Mahatma Gandhi had stated, “An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye ends in making everybody blind.”

Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away” (Matthew 5:38-42 KJV).

The intent of the law of retribution was to ensure that the punishment corresponded to the crime in order to control the punishment inflicted on the guilty one. Yeshua was not abrogating this important legal principle, but was rather inviting the Corpus Christianum in their daily lives to go beyond the letter of the law. The implicit intention of the law, to eliminate personal revenge, was stated explicitly by Yeshua; and He, in His own person and ministry, modeled it for us.

The Apostle Paul wrote, “Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Romans 12:17-19 KJV).

The biblical principal of lex talionis was to teach us to punish criminals equivalent to the degree of crime they had committed against a victim. The principals of lex talionis are still relied upon by any fair modern jurisprudence system throughout the world today. It teaches us to punish the crime accordingly, but not necessarily with literal equality in retaliation. Those convicted of murder are subject to the death penalty, this is biblical and fair and just. Amputation of the hand of a thief is not warranted under modern jurisprudence or the biblical passages that support and teach lex talionis. Many Muslim nations that implement and practice Islamic Sharia Law apply the the “eye for an eye” rule quite literally. These Muslim countries do not use or understand the concept of lex talionis appropriately (e.g., stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery, homosexuals (LGBT) are routinely executed, and thieves are punished by the amputation of both hands).

Save Thyself For Your Marital Partner

Are you serious?

Sex sells. Advertisers have known this from the time of the advent of print media, before print media there were soda fountains and drive-up establishments that had their waitresses and carhops serve customers in roller skates and showing off some their physical assets. The bartender or barhop had to have sex appeal, it’s part of the job. Cigarettes, beer, liquor, shampoo, makeup, cars, and even guns sell better with a little sex appeal, Today we have Hooters, a “family” restaurant.

The problems with these advertisements and “family friendly” establishments, is that they promote promiscuity and degrade “family values.

Human sexuality has biological, emotional/physical and spiritual aspects. The biological aspect of sexuality refers to the reproductive mechanism as well as the basic biological drive, Libido, that exists in all species, which is hormonally controlled. The emotional or physical aspect of sexuality refers to the bond that exists between individuals, and is expressed through profound feelings or physical manifestations of emotions of love, trust, and caring. There is also a spiritual aspect of sexuality of an individual or as a connection with others. Experience has shown that adolescents are curious about some or all the aspects of their sexuality as well as the nature of sexuality in general, and that many will wish to experience their sexuality.

Traditionally, adolescents were not given any information on sexual matters, with discussion of these issues being considered taboo. Such instruction as was given was traditionally left to a child’s parents, and often this was put off until just before a child’s marriage. Most of the information on sexual matters were obtained informally from friends and the media, and much of this information was of doubtful value. Much of such information was usually known to be deficient, especially during the period following puberty when curiosity of sexual matters was the most acute. This deficiency became increasingly evident by the increasing incidence of teenage pregnancies, especially in Western countries after the 1960s. As part of each country’s efforts to reduce such pregnancies, programs of sex education were instituted, initially over strong opposition from parent and religious groups.

Burt defined sex education as the study of the characteristics of beings; a male and female. Such characteristics make up the person’s sexuality. Sexuality is an important aspect of the life of a human being and almost all the people including children want to know about it. Sex education includes all the educational measures which in any way may of life that have their center on sex. He further said that sex education stands for protection, presentation extension, improvement and development of the family based on accepted ethical ideas. Leepson sees sex education as instruction in various physiological, psychological and sociological aspects of sexual response and reproduction. Kearney also defined sex education as “involving a comprehensive course of action by the school, calculated to bring about the socially desirable attitudes, practices and personal conduct on the part of children and adults, that will best protect the individual as a human and the family as a social institution. Thus, sex education may also be described as “sexuality education”, which means that it encompasses education about all aspects of sexuality, including information about family planning, reproduction, fertilization, conception and development of the embryo and fetus, through to childbirth), plus information about all aspects of one’s sexuality including: body image, sexual orientation, sexual pleasure, values, decision making, communication, dating, relationships, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and how to avoid them, and birth control methods. Various aspect of sex education are to right in school depending on the age of the students or what the children are able to comprehend at a particular point in time. Rubin and Kindendall expressed that sex education is not merely a unit in reproduction and teaching how babies are conceived and born. It has a far richer scope and goal of helping the youngster incorporate sex most meaningfully into his present and future life, to provide him with some basic understanding on virtually every aspect of sex by the time he reaches full maturity.

Almost all U.S. students receive some form of sex education at least once between grades 7 and 12; many schools begin addressing some topics in grades 5 or 6. However, what students learn varies widely, because curriculum decisions are so decentralized. Many states have laws governing what is taught in sex education classes or allowing parents to opt out. Some state laws leave curriculum decisions to individual school districts.

For example, a 1999 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that most U.S. sex education courses in grades 7 through 12 cover puberty, HIV, STIs, abstinence, implications of teenage pregnancy, and how to resist peer pressure. Other studied topics, such as methods of birth control and infection prevention, sexual orientation, sexual abuse, and factual and ethical information about abortion, varied more widely.

Only two forms of sex education are taught in American schools: “abstinence plus” and abstinence-only. Comprehensive or “abstinence plus” sex education covers abstinence as a positive choice, but also teaches about contraception and avoidance of STIs when sexually active. A 2002 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 58% of secondary school principals describe their sex education curriculum as “abstinence plus”.

Abstinence-only sex education tells teenagers that they should be sexually abstinent until marriage and does not provide information about contraception. In the Kaiser study, 34% of high-school principals said their school’s main message was abstinence-only.

The difference between these two approaches, and their impact on teen behavior, remains a controversial subject. In the U.S., teenage birth rates had been dropping since 1991, but a 2007 report showed a 3% increase from 2005 to 2006. From 1991 to 2005, the percentage of teens reporting that they had ever had sex or were currently sexually active showed small declines. However, the U.S. still has the highest teen birth rate and one of the highest rates of STIs among teens in the industrialized world. Public opinion polls conducted over the years have found that the vast majority of Americans favor broader sex education programs over those that teach only abstinence, although abstinence educators recently published poll data with the opposite conclusion.

Proponents of comprehensive sex education, which include the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine and the American College Health Association, argue that sexual behavior after puberty is a given, and it is therefore crucial to provide information about the risks and how they can be minimized; they also claim that denying teens such factual information leads to unwanted pregnancies and STIs.

On the other hand, proponents of abstinence-only sex education object to curricula that fail to teach their standard of moral behavior; they maintain that a morality based on sex only within the bounds of marriage is “healthy and constructive” and that value-free knowledge of the body may lead to immoral, unhealthy, and harmful practices. Within the last decade, the federal government has encouraged abstinence-only education by steering over a billion dollars to such programs. Some 25 states now decline the funding so that they can continue to teach comprehensive sex education. Funding for one of the federal government’s two main abstinency-only funding programs, Title V, was extended only until December 31, 2007; Congress is debating whether to continue it past that date.

The impact of the rise in abstinence-only education remains a question. To date, no published studies of abstinence-only programs have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse. In 2007, a study ordered by the U.S. Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex (and use contraception) in their teenage years as those who did not.Abstinence-only advocates claimed that the study was flawed because it was too narrow and began when abstinence-only curricula were in their infancy, and that other studies have demonstrated positive effects.

According to a 2007 report, Teen pregnancies in the United States showed 3% increase in the teen birth rate from 2005 to 2006, to nearly 42 births per 1,000.

According to Anna Mulrine at U.S. News & World Report, records show that professionals still do not know what method of sex education works best to keep teens from engaging in sexual activity but they are still working to find out.

This insanity is the result of the removal of God (Jehovah) and the Holy Bible from schools, They were replaced with Planned Parenthood, The National Organization of Women and many pro–homosexual and pro-abortion groups.These secular teachers and groups teach our children how to have sex, and then they assure them that if an accidental pregnancy occurs they can take care of that too, without parents ever finding out.

I don’t care what type of music your child listens too, the entertainment industry provides plenty of provocative skin scenes to reinforce the idea fornication is good for you. The lyrics are no better, often describing actual sexual acts in detail.

Reading, writing, arithmetic, English, history and current events are what are needed to be taught in our schools. Most our Founding Fathers were educated this way, some graduated Harvard at 14 tears of age. They used a King James Version of the Holy Bible for reading. I submit that every child needs to be given a copy of the Book of Proverbs with many lessons structured from the writings of this book. Our society certainly has degraded since we made all these changes against God and towards immorality and debauchery. A society without morality is doomed to ultimate failure, we have no morality in our society anymore.

Essentially, we teach our children what part of their bodies have which function, provide graphic demonstrations using bananas and condoms, have homosexuals present their agenda and then provide information where our children can dispose their mistake by murdering their own child. Of course we give them free contraceptives and tell them to have fun but be safe. This is no different than giving a rattlesnake to a child to play with and expecting good results.

If it were possible to teach just two of the Ten Commandments in our public schools I would start with, “Thou shalt not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14 KJV) and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s” (Exodus 20:17 KJV).

Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28 KJV).

.Many Christians teach that sexual intercourse is meant to take place within the context of marriage, and that sexual abstinence is the norm outside of that. But for married couples, Paul of Tarsus wrote that they should not deprive each other, except for a short time for devotion to prayer. However, some Christians are against any use of contraceptives, even within marriage.

Catholicism defines chastity as the virtue that moderates the sexual appetite. Unmarried Catholics express chastity through sexual abstinence. Sexual intercourse within marriage is considered chaste when it retains the twofold significance of union and procreation.

The Orthodox Church teaches chastity until marriage. But even then, in accordance with the teaching of the Apostle Paul, periods of abstinence are encouraged among married couples. Traditionally, Orthodox spouses abstain from physical relations on Wednesdays, Fridays, Saturdays the eves of Great Feasts and throughout the four lenten periods (Great Lent. Nativity Fast, Apostles’ Fast and Dormition Fast).

Judaism forbids intercourse outside marriage (which is termed zenuth or promiscuity), but has no ideal of chastity. Within marriage abstinence is also required during and following a woman’s menstruation. The husband is not allowed to deprive sex from his wife, even if she is not fertile (known as mitzvat ‘onah’).

King Solomon said, “My son, attend unto my wisdom, and bow thine ear to my understanding: That thou mayest regard discretion, and that thy lips may keep knowledge. For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil: But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a twoedged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell. Lest thou shouldest ponder the path of life, her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them. Hear me now therefore, O ye children, and depart not from the words of my mouth. Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house: Lest thou give thine honour unto others, and thy years unto the cruel: Lest strangers be filled with thy wealth; and thy labours be in the house of a stranger; And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed, And say, How have I hated instruction, and my heart despised reproof; And have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me!” (Proverbs 5:1-13 KJV) These are truly words for the wise.

According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, “The power of procreation is a sacred part of God’s plan. It’s an expression of love and allows husband and wife to create life. God has commanded that this power and privilege of a sexual relationship only exist between a man and woman who are legally married. This commandment is called the law of chastity. It requires abstinence from sex before marriage and complete fidelity and loyalty to our spouses after marriage. God expects us to keep our thoughts clean and be modest in our dress, speech, and actions (Matthew 5:27–28).  We must also avoid viewing pornography and engaging in homosexual relations.”

“We understand that the principles of the law of chastity set The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints apart and may sound strict to the rest of the world, yet great blessings of peace, self-respect, and self-control come from obeying this commandment.”

While I at odds with almost all of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I find nothing wrong with this church doctrine, in fact I applaud it.

Clearly sex should be reserved for marriage, and marriage is ordained by God between one man and one woman. Marital infidelity should be avoided at all costs. Saint John wrote, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie” (Revelation 22:14-15 KJV). So that indiscriminate moment may cost you much more than you think in retrospective..

Remember that a man or woman who will cheat on their future or current spouse with you, will do so with another person also. You’re really not that special, your just the ways to meet an end. Save yourself for your marital partner. It will be a blessing to both of you and a night neither of you will forget.

Remember not to base your relationships on feelings. I like to show an example from the Torah on how we are suposed to love. “And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming. And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself. And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her : and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death” (Genesis 24:63-67 KJV). The order here is that Isaac took Rebekah to be his wife and then he loved her. That may seem like putting the cart in front of the horse in today’s world. It is never wise to base a relationship on feelings, feelings all to often change. Isaac loved Rebekah because she was his wife, and this is the key for a successful marriage today, because our wives and husbands are our spouses we are require to love them. This is also the principal taught in most wedding vows.