Dennis Prager vs Matt Fradd | HEATED Debate on P*rn | Pastor Reacts

Warning, this conversation is very frank. So maybe a warning here moving forward, we're gonna get into some very difficult scenarios. Maybe you should put the kids to bed on this one.

God made male sexual nature as variety oriented.

I take that to mean that men need a variety of women to be satisfied. Where does the Bible teach that? That is what Frad should ask Prager because the answer is, wait for it, nowhere. If you seek other people besides your spouse in order to be satisfied, what theology are you speaking now?

Let's say they looked at bathing suit ads, not at Prayboy. They looked at that other beautiful women together.

Ladies, do we have any ladies in the audience? Would you be okay with this kind of behavior from your husband? Now, is there some kind of ontology to what Jesus is saying here? Are we held accountable by God for adultery if we look at a woman with lust for her?

Or is there something else that's going on here? In order to answer this question, you have to be aware of rabbinic teaching in the first century because this is a very common practice for rabbis in Jesus' day.

The Debate Over Lust, Desire, and Coveting

Welcome back, friends. Got a brand new video for your consideration. If you are brand new to the channel, I am so glad that you are here. My name is Nate Sala, and my job is to help you become the effective Christian that you were meant to be.

Jesus gave all of his disciples a command as they got out into the world and spread the kingdom of God. He said, be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. And that's what we're attempting to do at this channel right here.

Today, we're gonna have a very difficult conversation centering on a debate between Dennis Prager and Matt. Is it fraud, Frad? It better not be fraud. The issue is, is it okay for folks to look at pornography?

I take it, is it okay particularly for married persons to look at those things? If even the title of this video makes you a tad uncomfortable, then I'm right there with you, okay? But there's no way around this.

This particular issue is a huge problem right now in our society, and Christians need to know how to think through this, not only well, but biblically. So I have plans to show you what the New Testament actually teaches with regard to lusting and sinning.

I know that a number of you have probably grown up in churches and heard Jesus saying, well, you know what? If you looked at a woman with lust in your heart, you have already committed adultery with her, and that has caused you a lot of concern and anxiety.

Well, I want you to stay tuned to the end of the video, because I'm going to walk through that passage together with you and explain what I think Jesus is really doing there. But first, let's go ahead and jump into the discussion.

Also, I want to say that I think I agree with you that obviously adultery and lust are different things. If they weren't different things, we wouldn't have two separate words for them.

But yeah.

Also, which comes somewhat of a revelation to my Christian friends, is there is no sin of the... There are 613 laws in the Torah. None of them say do not lust. You can't covet. Covet is a very different concept than lust.

Covet means you want to take what belongs to another, and there's a very simple proof that it doesn't mean lust, covet. You don't lust after a house or a donkey, one presumes.

Well, okay. Then what does covet mean in the Hebrew if it doesn't mean lust? So, I mean, that's actually two questions, really. One is, what does lust mean when Jesus uses that word in Matthew chapter five?

And the second question is, what does covet mean in the Hebrew if the definition does not include lust? What's interesting is, if you go to Proverbs chapter six, verse 25, which I take it Prager accepts the wisdom of Solomon, right?

So, right now I'm trying to find common ground between someone like me and someone like Dennis Prager, okay? So Proverbs 6 .25 uses the same Hebrew word for covet, only this time, watch this. It says, do not desire her beauty.

Desire, there's the word, covet. Do not desire her beauty in your heart, who is her, the evil woman. Don't desire her beauty, nor let her capture you with her eyelids. For on account of a harlot, one is reduced to a loaf of bread and an adulterous hunts for the precious life.

So clearly the Jewish Bible that Prager accepts uses the same word for covet that we find in the 10 commandments that say, do not covet, do not desire your neighbor's wife. But Prager says that coveting is different from lust.

I don't see how. It just means to desire, to crave. I just don't see the Bible making a distinction between coveting and lust.

And yet you're not allowed to covet those either.

But do you make a distinction between sexual desire and lust? Do you see a distinction there?

No, I don't.

Okay, so therefore, if you don't see a distinction between those two things, I can see why you would think it insane to tell somebody they shouldn't lust.

I don't know how you sexually desire your wife and have no lust for her.

Oh, I do.

Okay.

I don't see how you can romantically desire your wife but not have lust for her either. So I'm on Prager's side now. How quickly the turntables have turned.

Well, well, well, how the turntables.

I will say this. I don't think it's beneficial to parse terms apart from the teaching of God's word. So it would be great if this discussion hinged on Bible verses that both Christian and Jew would accept.

Kind of like what I just did a moment ago in Proverbs.

So I would think that

That's interesting.

I would think that lust

So you think, so lust, okay, yeah, you're right. This is interesting. I've never confronted it quite this way. So lust

Lust reduces the subject to an object. It subordinates the dignity of the person to the good of a selfish pleasure. It's also a distorted sexual act. So it's an act which is contrary to human nature or to the end of the sexual act, I suppose.

Okay, so if sexual desire

Well, so I totally agree with Matt Fradd. And I like how he's parsing this out in this way because I think he's right in the way that these words are used today. But the question is, is Fradd's definition of lust the Bible's definition?

That's literally what I would ask if I were having this conversation. Remember, friends, if you are a student of God's word, you cannot lean too far over the skis of scripture. And so your definitional questions have to be grounded in the Bible or else the conversation will quickly drift away from it without anyone noticing.

The Hebrew word for covet that we find in the 10 commandment verses about coveting your neighbor's wife. So like Exodus 20, verse 17, Deuteronomy 5, verse 21, you shall not covet your neighbor's house, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male slave or his female slave or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

This word, hamad, it has a few meanings. It means to delight in, to crave, to take pleasure in, and yes, to lust after. There's a connotation to hamad of not simply longing or craving for something, but craving in order to take it, which I think is why you see the word used both for a neighbor's wife but also for your neighbor's possessions.

The reason I'm bringing this up is I don't see the Bible treating the word lust, which we typically understand to mean craving someone in a sexual way, I don't see the Bible treating that as bad. Well, put it this way, the Bible only seems to treat this as bad if done outside the parameters of marriage, which means that a husband can lust after his wife.

Now, Frad obviously disagrees with this, but I think a lot of Christians would disagree with Frad on this one.

Marriage and lust are different. Can you sexually desire a woman you're not married to and not lust for her?

Yes.

Oh, well.

I would think so.

Okay, I haven't heard that from a Christian before.

Because I suppose there were like three stages, if I would think of it. Like, if I board an airplane and I sit next to a beautiful woman and I'm attracted to her sexually, how could I not be?

Okay.

That's beyond my control. Now, the next step could be, now what do I do with that? Do I sit here and fantasize about what I could do with her sexually? Like, at that point, the will is engaged and that is something within my control.

Right.

So I think it is.

So it seems like Frad draws a line between desire and lust, all right? This line in the sand is going to become extremely important, I think, in this discussion, right? Where is the line? That's probably the question that everybody should be asking throughout this video.

It seems like, to Frad, you can desire a woman but not lust after her. Again, in my mind, I'm trying to square this with the Bible and I don't see a distinction there between those two things. Maybe you could draw the line at attraction and lust.

And I think maybe there is a biblical distinction there. It's actually found in James chapter one. And I'm going to go there towards the end of the video, so stick with me. But I don't think I agree with Frad here on where that line is.

I think I'm more in line with Prager right now.

It's important to make that distinction and I think that might be part of what drives some Christians neurotic if they think, well, sexual desire is a sin. Can't sexually desire anybody who isn't my wife.

Well, I think, not only Christians, but I think in some cases with Jews too, that it does drive people to be neurotic.

It's like if I said to you, don't think of a pink elephant.

Well, better. You're in a restaurant, don't think of food.

Right.

Because that's a real life.

Very bad, stop it. You'd go crazy.

That's right. And by the way, the more you don't think about it, the more you think about it. So there's that element too.

Agreed.

So I differ with you and I did with the father. And by the way, I mentioned this is very important to note. What accredited is to Franciscan University, A, having me. A, as a religious Jew, obviously doesn't believe in Christ.

I'm not a Christian. And B, that they discussed the openly with me at the university, what they heard me say on Daily Wire. But he did raise this issue about sexual objectification and that reduces the human being as one created God's image, et cetera.

Just what you said now. And I have a different view of that.

Sure.

I think this, I suspect you may have not heard this before on one of your podcasts.

Here we go.

On many of your guests. I think that in the bedroom, if a loving husband and who is a loving husband, and I have a word to say about what a loving husband is, a loving husband who sees his wife in the bedroom as a sexual object, I will be totally open with you.

I have said on the radio, if after X number of years married, your husband still sees you as a sex object, you are both very lucky.

I would say it depends what you mean by sex object. If what you mean is your husband continues to find you sexually desirable, I would agree with you. If what you mean is the man essentially treats his wife as a warm body to masturbate in, not taking into account her feelings, her desires.

Oh, of course. But that's not objectification.

Warning. This conversation is very frank. So maybe a warning here moving forward. We're gonna get into some very difficult sort of scenarios. Maybe you should put the kids to bed on this one. I personally did not think I would be listening to this video and reacting to it when I started my week off.

So let me just go ahead and say that.

Haitian has a dirty name. He said he doesn't, the father said one shouldn't even objectivize baseball players. And it was an excellent analogy. I had thought of that myself, but I do objectivize the baseball player.

I'm not sure if I agree with him.

But it doesn't mean that you would automatically mistreat the baseball player.

That's right. But I'm in a different relationship with the baseball player than I am with the one I'm married to.

Correct, but there is a place in the totality of a relationship. So here is my motto, because I talk about men and women every week for an hour on my radio show and I have for about 20 years. And that is you make love outside the bedroom and you have sex inside the bedroom.

I think it's a romanticization of the sex act to say that it's always making love. It's okay to make lust. It's okay to have some objectification. That doesn't mean you're mistreating her.

Yeah, I think I'd want to know what you mean by objectification.

I had the sense that you're using language.

To convey something that I might agree with.

Yes, you might. I think you really might. I agree with you.

Marriage, Objectification, and Pornography

Yeah, what Prager is saying is difficult to track because I can't think of a biblical passage that talks like Prager. I can't think of a biblical passage that sounds like him as he's saying what he's saying right here.

So then why not just say the same thing more biblically? First Peter 3 .7 says, you husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way as with a weaker vessel since she is a woman and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life so that your prayers will not be hindered.

In other words, don't be self-centered. Don't be self-seeking. Seek the benefit of your spouse. Seek her good. Hold her in high esteem. Give her honor as your fellow heir of God's grace, right? Paul says, husbands love your wives just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her so that he might sanctify her having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.

He who loves his own wife loves himself for no one has ever hated his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it just as Christ also does the church. So why not just speak like this, you know? Husbands are to honor their wives.

They are not to be self-centered and self-seeking in their expressions of love towards their wives. Instead, they are to sanctify and nourish and cherish their wives, even in the act of making love.

Does that take the excitement and fun out of sex? Not at all. What I'm saying exposes the motive behind what takes place in the bedroom for married couples. And maybe Prager and Frad and I are saying the same thing.

I'm just trying to say it with an eye on key biblical passages.

It certainly doesn't mean mistreat. It's not even implied, but any more than with the baseball player. And you'll say, well, I have a different relationship with the baseball player, but you're right.

Sex is its own world. I don't like to romanticize sex. Sex is many, many things. Sometimes it's love. Sometimes it's just pure sex. When it's pure sex and not just love, there is an element of objectification.

I'm crazy about her legs. Is that a statement of love? What do you mean? You don't love legs?

What do you mean by love, right? So I would say Aristotle and Aquinas would say that to love is to will the good of the other for their sake. So I don't will my wife's good for my sake. It's not like I say, honey, I really need you to go to CrossFit so I can lust after you.

But if I want her to get healthy for her sake, then this is love.

If she says to you, honey, there's a certain thing that you could do for me sexually that will really turn me on, and it may not really turn you on, are you being objectivized? Or are you doing it because you love her and because she wants it?

Well, first of all, she's asked a question in which I presumably am free to decline.

Oh, she's not free to decline. That's coercion, and there's no room for that.

Objectification and coercion are not the same thing.

So if she's asking me a question which I'm free to decline.

Right, so honey, would you put on this sexy outfit for me? Are you okay with that?

Me?

Yeah.

Buddy, hell, that's a question I didn't expect you to ask me.

Well, you opened it up.

I would not be okay with that.

That's interesting.

I don't think.

Even in the bedroom.

It's not that I'd be morally opposed to it. It's just that I'd feel uncomfortable with it.

Well, my view is that the more comfort the couple has, the better the relationship.

Let me tell you how spiritual I am. I have like four jokes floating around in my noggin right now and I'm not gonna say a single word, all right? This has gotta be hands down the most uncomfortable video that I've ever reacted to.

And I looked at Christian parody music videos, guys. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Stop it, stop it. But we're all up in this now, you know? And again, stay tuned to the end. I'm gonna share the biblical passage that I think will help you understand the difference where the line is between sinning and not sinning when it comes to lust.

So, you know, if you're with me on this and you haven't done so, I know I'm supposed to say this more. Please like this video, subscribe to the channel. I'm really bad with talking about these things.

But listen, if I've earned your subscription, please don't forget to help me because we're trying to get Wise Disciple out to more and more people. And I really appreciate you guys.

I think that's right. So long as comfort doesn't lead to what I would consider to be sexually perverse acts.

Well, why is it sexually perverse to wear a sexy outfit?

It's not, and that's why I said I'm not morally opposed to it.

But if you're saying that

Oh, okay, so your discomfort is personal. That's fair. That's not an area I need to get into.

One thing I would love you to get into, because you did say this in the email, is you think that the widespread proliferation.

Of pornography is destroying teenagers.

Help people hear this side of it.

Yes, well, I gave an example tonight. So I'm very friendly with a young woman. She's 23, very, very close to her. People could guess who it is, because I do a podcast with her. So she is so open, God bless her.

I don't think she would object to my telling this story. In fact, maybe it was even discussed on one of our podcasts. We're very, very open. So she was on a date, and they were both attracted. It was not the first date, and they kissed.

That's all they did, they kissed. And in the midst of the kiss, he grabbed her neck. Like this. And even me, Mr. Open, was taken aback. And so was she. To her credit, when she took his hand away, she said either then or later that evening, or later another time, why did you do that?

And he, to his credit, was open enough to say, I thought you would like it. That's what I see on the internet. That's a bad thing. The number of young men who learn about women through porn and not real life is a very scary thing that has developed.

So I am as worried as you are about the pornification of society. When I answered the question that Jordan Peterson asked, which came out of nowhere, I'm not blaming him in the least. It was a perfectly legit question, but it came out of nowhere.

I was thinking still in the way I have always defined it, it's Playboy magazine. That to me, that was porn. The stuff that is out there now is not what I think of when I'm asked the question. And so.

Pornography, Nakedness, and the Bible’s Sexual Ethics

Okay, so fair enough, right? There is a technical distinction between a magazine and a video of sex acts, okay? But again, square this with the Bible's teaching. I don't see a difference in terms of sinning or not sinning when it comes to a magazine.

In other words, oh, it's a magazine, so therefore it's not a sin. Or, oh, that's a video, well, therefore that is a sin. No, the Bible doesn't give room for this kind of attitude. The sexual expectation that God places on his creation comes down to marriage.

If you are with your spouse in the ways that we've already discussed, you're following the biblical expectation. If you're looking at someone who is not your spouse, you're already in trouble. I mean, there are a number of biblical passages that talk about uncovering the nakedness of other people who are not your spouse, and the Bible says that this is prohibited.

And if you think about it, the only time that nakedness was a good thing was in the Garden of Eden. Genesis chapter two, verse 25. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. If you think about the significance of that past, the last several words right there in that verse, they were not ashamed.

I think you see the significance of that phrase because if you are naked in front of others, you should be ashamed. Nakedness now is not appropriate in this world, but it is appropriate in the confines of a marriage in the sight of God.

As a matter of fact, I propose that the nakedness we find in Genesis is meant to communicate the level of intimacy that mankind once had with God. And we no longer have that. We can certainly reflect that level of intimacy with our spouses because our marriages are meant to reflect our relationship with God.

I just literally read the apostle Paul saying that in Ephesians chapter five. But we also pervert, we distort that intimacy when we give that kind of intimacy away to people outside of our married spouse.

That's why I think you'll find all these passages prohibiting people to uncover the nakedness of another person in the Bible. Look at Leviticus 18, verses six, and this whole entire chunk of text right here, right?

None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness. I am Yahweh. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father. That is the nakedness of your mother. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife, the nakedness of your sister, the nakedness of your son's daughter, the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter.

You shall not uncover her nakedness. I mean, this whole chunk of text, this isn't the only place in the Bible where this is, is running down the list of what not to do. All of this uncovering the nakedness of are prohibition passages.

Now, a lot of people think that uncovering the nakedness of someone else is a euphemism for having sex with that person. So if that's all the phrase means, then it seems okay to literally look at someone naked as long as you don't have sex with them.

To that, I would say, that doesn't explain the usage of the phrase uncover the nakedness of someone everywhere else in the Bible. I don't think sex is the best explanation for what Ham did to Noah, for example.

But the other thing I would say is this, what is the reason for the euphemism in the first place? What is the reasoning behind choosing the word nakedness in the euphemism, right? Isn't the euphemism only appropriate if we recognize that nakedness itself isn't appropriate?

That's what I'm trying to say. And if I'm right about this relationship that we find in the Garden of Eden between nakedness and intimacy, and it's reflection of God's relationship with mankind, well, then the euphemism itself reminds us that nakedness is inappropriate outside of marriage.

So that's all really a long way of saying, I don't think playboy is unsinful to look at. It's still a sin for people. So Prager is not helping himself here.

I did say this to the father tonight, and I'm sure it shocked everybody there.

Did you ask him?

No, keep going, I'll make a bad joke.

You'll get a charge out of this intellectually. It'll blow your mind, I think. So my dad was an Orthodox Jew, modern Orthodox admittedly, but Orthodox, never drove on the Sabbath, never ate a non-kosher food, wore a yarmulke in the house, sent the kids to yeshiva.

I mean, he was the real deal. He was the president of the Kingsway Jewish Center, still exists, an Orthodox synagogue in Brooklyn, New York. And he subscribed to playboy, which shocks Jews as well as non-Jews, to be honest.

Good. Okay. Yeah. Good.

Glad that it does.

Yes, okay.

Well, wait, wait, wait. If it shocks Jews, isn't that a problem? Are we getting a representative Jewish take on pornography from Prager? If Jews themselves are shocked by his father's actions here? Or, you know, is this just Prager's take on this issue, but not the typical Jewish attitude on this issue?

However, so I was raised in a very sexually open home that was also deeply religious, and I never found them conflicting as he didn't. And so he was an outlier, I acknowledge, and I am an outlier, I acknowledge.

However, I want people to understand, my parents were together 72 years, and they loved each other crazy. When she died at 89, he died at 96. He basically, his life ended. His screensaver was I love you Hindi.

That was his nickname for her, her name was Hilda. And she knew he got playboy. This did not trouble my mother. Oh, that's Mac. Okay, I'm married to a live wire who was faithful and who loved me, and she was crazy about him, and that was it.

What would be better?

I would really take this story seriously. If Prager said, and here's where my father got this attitude from the Bible, turn with me, Matt, to Leviticus chapter, whatever, or, you know, turn with me, Matt, to Deuteronomy chapter, whatever, you know, but that's not what's going on here.

So I don't take this anecdote very seriously, and I don't think you should either. And I say that, listen, I say that with much respect to Dennis Prager, I think he's a brilliant man, but we just, as avid students of God's word, we cannot lean too far over the skis of scripture, and this whole entire conversation needs to be standing on top of the scripture.

For your father to love your mother and get playboy, or for your father to say, even though I'm tempted to look at pornography, my wife's body is enough for me, and I'm not going to look at that even though I'm tempted to.

That's a very fair question. I don't have an answer, which will, I should give you the answer you want.

I think you should too.

Yes, that's a good point, you do. I don't know what that means enough. As I said, which bothers, it's funny, there were two groups that it bothers, the very religious and the radical feminist. When I say that men are variety built in, God made male sexual nature as variety oriented.

As one, I don't know who put it this way, but one wit put it, a woman.

Where does the Bible teach that? God made men variety oriented. I take that to mean that men need a variety of women to be satisfied. Where does the Bible teach that? Where does God say that? This is his desire for men.

This is what he's implanted in men. That is what Fred should ask Prager. Because the answer is, wait for it, nowhere. The fact is God says that a man should be with one woman for life. The picture is clear.

Genesis chapter two, verse 24. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh. Jesus comments on this in Matthew chapter 19, verse six. So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. The expectation is one woman for life. And you should be fully satisfied with your wife. And the same goes for you. If you're a wife, you should be fully satisfied with your husband.

Just about every time you find a man taking more than one wife, you see a problem in the Bible. Trouble finds this kind of person.

Why?

Because that's not God's design. So a careful reader of the Bible will notice that a man's desire for variety is a sin. A desire for a variety of folks to please someone sexually is giving in to sinful desires.

It's a distortion of God's design. I think this tells you what you need to know when you listen to Prager. He's way off with his comment here and Frantz should call him out on it.

Loves a man and men love women. Now, I don't want men to go around loving women. I'm totally opposed to that. I am, I am and insist on my being. It's not even debatable that I am faithful to my wife, it's a given.

My wife knows that other women are a turn on. She knows it, it does not bother her. She is, she, to my luck, I am married to a woman who does not find male sexual nature frightening. Most women do and by the way, I understand that.

But again, I think we have to make the distinction between sexual arousal and sitting and fantasizing or watching pornography.

Actually, they looked at it together.

And if you, well, that's sad too, I think.

I don't, why is it sad?

Because I think pornography is a perversion of the sexual act.

Well, okay.

Which is holy.

What if they looked, okay.

Let me finish. Which is God's first commandment to humanity. Be fruitful and multiply. It is the most intimate thing two human beings can do together. Not watch the office, not go for a walk on the beach.

It's the fundamental act that brings about the family which brings about society. I would be opinion that you pervert that fundamental act.

I don't know why it's, why is it perverting?

Because it usurps the natural end of sexual intercourse. If I eat food and then force myself to throw up, I'm usurping.

So actually it does more than that though. And I've said this in other videos. Marriage is meant to speak theology. Marriage is meant to reflect the relationship we have with God. That's what I mean by that.

You'll notice biblical passages in the Old Testament where it says God is a jealous God. He doesn't want us worshiping him and any other gods. What is the first commandment, Mr. Prager?

Right?

You shall have no other gods before me. Did you know this? Many Jews consider the 10 commandments as a set of marital vows. Like if you track the 10 commandments, this is a good exercise when you're done with the video here.

You know, you go to like Exodus or Deuteronomy, right? And you just track the 10 commandments. It can be read as marital vows given on your wedding day. And whether or not that's correct, the bottom line is God's relationship with his people is reflected through our marriages and also vice versa.

And when God says don't have any other gods besides me, what he means is be satisfied with me and me alone. Let me be enough. This is the same thing that a spouse should be able to say to another spouse.

You should be fully satisfied in your spouse. That is why God says marriage is one man, one woman, one flesh for life. Be satisfied in what God has given you. And in that sense, let your marriage speak theology.