Christian opinions on masturbation

[Kuroshiro]

Ok so I found this website called stopmasturbating.org (a Christian website which is why I am asking the opinions of Christians but others can answer if they like) and on one of the pages it said that:

"Looking at dirty Magazines – You are mentally raping the person that you are looking at."

"Some females and gay males use foreign objects and dinguses [they mean dildos] when masturbating. In doing so they are raping the raw materials of this world."


Since the definition of rape is "The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will"

Since you aren't forcing anyone to do any do anything it isn't rape so I am not sure why they are misusing the term.

Is this one of the more common Christian perception of masturbation or is it a one off thing?:what:

I am interested to hear your opinions on this.:)

[lacey02]

Never heard of this before. I have heard about not waking up sexual self until marriage tho

[Arkansasguy]

Ok so I found this website called stopmasturbating.org (a Christian website which is why I am asking the opinions of Christians but others can answer if they like) and on one of the pages it said that:

"Looking at dirty Magazines – You are mentally raping the person that you are looking at."

"Some females and gay males use foreign objects and dinguses [they mean dildos] when masturbating. In doing so they are raping the raw materials of this world."


Since the definition of rape is "The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will"

Since you aren't forcing anyone to do any do anything it isn't rape so I am not sure why they are misusing the term.

Is this one of the more common Christian perception of masturbation or is it a one off thing?:what:

I am interested to hear your opinions on this.:)

Masturbation is a misuse of the sexual faculty for a nonprocreative purpose, akin to sodomy.

[mattsmith48]

Ok so I found this website called stopmasturbating.org (a Christian website which is why I am asking the opinions of Christians but others can answer if they like) and on one of the pages it said that:

"Looking at dirty Magazines – You are mentally raping the person that you are looking at."

"Some females and gay males use foreign objects and dinguses [they mean dildos] when masturbating. In doing so they are raping the raw materials of this world."


Since the definition of rape is "The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will"

Since you aren't forcing anyone to do any do anything it isn't rape so I am not sure why they are misusing the term.

Is this one of the more common Christian perception of masturbation or is it a one off thing?:what:

I am interested to hear your opinions on this.:)

For people against masturbation they seems to know alot about it

[Pat the Bunny]

"Looking at dirty Magazines – You are mentally raping the person that you are looking at."

Sorry even though I went to a christian school I'm not really christian myself but this may be one of stupidest things I've ever seen. "Mentally raping", seriously? If anything, wouldn't it be mentally consensual sexing since the models do it voluntarily? Anyway, when I went to a christian school all the christians where actually fairly progressive, for gays, condoms, sex before marriage, all okay with them. I don't know if that is the norm though.

[phuckphace]

I can totally see how using porn is immoral but I'm left scratching my head as to how masturbation is supposedly "akin to sodomy".

[Falcons_11]

I was under the impression that all major Christian churches have accepted masturbation as normal and not serious sin. I remember something my granddad once said to me that 90% of all males (females too, I would guess) masturbate. The other 10% are liars.

[Cadanance00]

I was under the impression that all major Christian churches have accepted masturbation as normal and not serious sin. I remember something my granddad once said to me that 90% of all males (females too, I would guess) masturbate. The other 10% are liars.

LOL. I think what the OP refers to what repressed "Christians" put out to make themselves look holier to others like themselves. I don't think it's even primarily intended for teens, and as such has no basis in reality.

The same people will tell you that Satan put dinosaur bones in the ground solely to confuse later generations of paleontologists and the Greenland ice cap is melting because there is a liberal conspiracy to get people to believe there is global warming.

My advice: "Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain."

[phuckphace]

I'm pretty sure that the "dinosaur bones are a test of our faith" nutjobs are a really small number. all YECs I've ever met accept that dinosaurs were real animals, they just supposedly lived alongside humans and maybe rode on the Ark or whatever.

[Arkansasguy]

I can totally see how using porn is immoral but I'm left scratching my head as to how masturbation is supposedly "akin to sodomy".

Sodomy is wrong because it uses sexuality in a manner designed to exclude procreation. Masturbation does this too.

I was under the impression that all major Christian churches have accepted masturbation as normal and not serious sin.

Well you were apparently misinformed.

[Pat the Bunny]

Sodomy is wrong because it uses sexuality in a manner designed to exclude procreation. Masturbation does this too.


And this is wrong because...?

[SethfromMI]

I can totally see how using porn is immoral but I'm left scratching my head as to how masturbation is supposedly "akin to sodomy".

I think what gets more associated with the sin aspect is when we masturbate, we are usually thinking of someone and the act many in the church would consider lusting after them. Jesus equated lusting after someone in their hearts as committing adultery with them. since most people don't masturbate without some time image of someone, I am guessing this is where the sin aspect comes in (only my thought/understanding of the subject)

[Arkansasguy]

And this is wrong because...?

Because it is a use of sex aside from its natural purpose.

[Judean Zealot]

GuitaRomeo

The rationale is that God gave us sexual enjoyment as an inducement to reproduce, and as such using that enjoyment for non procreative purpose is in a sense taking from God while not fulfilling His will.

[Pat the Bunny]

Because it is a use of sex aside from its natural purpose.

And this is bad because...?

EDIT:

GuitaRomeo

The rationale is that God gave us sexual enjoyment as an inducement to reproduce, and as such using that enjoyment for non procreative purpose is in a sense taking from God while not fulfilling His will.

OK, this makes slightly more sense, but assuming giving someone sexual is a 1 time thing for god, as long as you do end up reproducing, why would it still matter if you also use it (the sexual enjoyment) in different ways. You already have the sexual enjoyment, why not use it anyway. That's like giving someone a book and saying he's only allowed to read it for book reports (kinda lame analogy, I know)

[Arkansasguy]

And this is bad because...?

Because it is a deficient form of sex.

[Jinglebottom]

I don't see anything wrong with masturbation (I'm not a Christian though), as long you don't do it excessively. None of my business either way.

[Pat the Bunny]

Because it is a deficient form of sex.

I wouldn't really call it deficient, it definitely has its uses, like getting rid of sexual urges without having to procreate. If masturbation isn't natural, then why do some teens start doing it without knowing what it is? If it isn't natural then I find it kinda weird to think that millions of teens everywhere just thought "Oh golly gee, I sure feel like rubbing on my penis today for no reason!".

Also, why would something be evil just because it's 'deficient'. Is junkfood evil for being a deficient form of eating?

[Judean Zealot]

Is junkfood evil for being a deficient form of eating?

Yes, and therein lies the answer to your previous question. All pleasure exists merely as a spur to get us to do what we must, as well as an opportunity for personal growth by withstanding the temptation to abuse that pleasure. Eating non nutritious foods for the sake of pleasure alone is most definitely something wrong, as it both implies and creates a state of mind wherein pleasure is viewed as a goal in itself, which is inimical to spiritual growth.

[Pat the Bunny]

Yes, and therein lies the answer to your previous question. All pleasure exists merely as a spur to get us to do what we must, as well as an opportunity for personal growth by withstanding the temptation to abuse that pleasure. Eating non nutritious foods for the sake of pleasure alone is most definitely something wrong, as it both implies and creates a state of mind wherein pleasure is viewed as a goal in itself, which is inimical to spiritual growth.

So if I understand this correctly, you're not allowed to do something with pleasure as the goal, however you are allowed to get pleasure from pursuing spiritual growth.

[Judean Zealot]

So if I understand this correctly, you're not allowed to do something with pleasure as the goal, however you are allowed to get pleasure from pursuing spiritual growth.

Absolutely. Pleasure in God is the purpose of the world's creation, pleasure of the flesh is merely a cheap distraction.

[Arkansasguy]

I wouldn't really call it deficient, it definitely has its uses, like getting rid of sexual urges without having to procreate. If masturbation isn't natural, then why do some teens start doing it without knowing what it is? If it isn't natural then I find it kinda weird to think that millions of teens everywhere just thought "Oh golly gee, I sure feel like rubbing on my penis today for no reason!".

Also, why would something be evil just because it's 'deficient'. Is junkfood evil for being a deficient form of eating?

It's unnatural in that it's contrary to its nature. That it is widely practiced in no way detracts from this.

[phuckphace]

is it considered a misuse of sex for a husband and wife to enjoy sex recreationally?

if I'm not mistaken this is the belief of those who say birth control is "wrong" (I personally don't see how so since its use prevents some abortions).

[Arkansasguy]

is it considered a misuse of sex for a husband and wife to enjoy sex recreationally?

If they engage in sodomy or contraception, yes.

if I'm not mistaken this is the belief of those who say birth control is "wrong" (I personally don't see how so since its use prevents some abortions).

1. It doesn't long term, contraceptive access increases promiscuity, which means more abortion.

2. Even if it did it would still be wrong. As contraception is one of the things that is intrinsically evil.

[phuckphace]

interesting. I don't believe the contraceptives-cause-promiscuity argument (our social conditions and immorality do) and contraceptives are an attempt to neutralize some of the fallout from that. of course people ~ought~ to keep it in their pants, but unfortunately what we ought to do and what we're really going to do are completely different things.

[Arkansasguy]

interesting. I don't believe the contraceptives-cause-promiscuity argument (our social conditions and immorality do) and contraceptives are an attempt to neutralize some of the fallout from that. of course people ~ought~ to keep it in their pants, but unfortunately what we ought to do and what we're really going to do are completely different things.

Widespread use and access to contraception is part and parcel of our immorality.

Did you know that Pope Paul VI predicted contraceptive access would lead to a number of the current evils?

[Pat the Bunny]

1. It doesn't long term, contraceptive access increases promiscuity, which means more abortion.


This is just plain wrong. 1 sex without contraception will give more pregnant than a 100 sex with contraception.

[Arkansasguy]

This is just plain wrong. 1 sex without contraception will give more pregnant than a 100 sex with contraception.

No sex will give less pregnant than sex with contraception.

[Pat the Bunny]

No sex will give less pregnant than sex with contraception.

But if there wouldn't be contraception, than people would just sex more without contraception, which would increase pregnancy, which would increase abortion.

[Arkansasguy]

But if there wouldn't be contraception, than people would just sex more without contraception, which would increase pregnancy, which would increase abortion.

This is contradicted by the witness of history, specifically the history of the last fifty years in the United States.

[phuckphace]

Widespread use and access to contraception is part and parcel of our immorality.

Did you know that Pope Paul VI predicted contraceptive access would lead to a number of the current evils?

no, that's silly. the idea is to end up with a conservative society that isn't inclined toward having promiscuous sex in the first place. condoms have been around for centuries - your 17th century specimen was likely to be made out of lamb intestine. if you're looking for the culprit behind the sexual revolution, I can tell you that it wasn't the first guy who had the idea to wrap his junk with sheepgut.

it's the same argument that applies with gun control. it isn't access to a gun that creates an insatiable desire to commit murder any more than wearing a condom turns one into an amoral sex-fiend.

[PinkFloyd]

I think it's on the more extreme side of Christianity.

[Arkansasguy]

no, that's silly. the idea is to end up with a conservative society that isn't inclined toward having promiscuous sex in the first place. condoms have been around for centuries - your 17th century specimen was likely to be made out of lamb intestine. if you're looking for the culprit behind the sexual revolution, I can tell you that it wasn't the first guy who had the idea to wrap his junk with sheepgut.

it's the same argument that applies with gun control. it isn't access to a gun that creates an insatiable desire to commit murder any more than wearing a condom turns one into an amoral sex-fiend.

I'm aware that contraception has existed for centuries. However, widespread access to it, and social acceptability of its use, does (did) increase promiscuity. I don't get how this can be denied. When you not only relax social disapproval of fornication, but also make means of avoiding the natural consequences of fornication socially acceptable, obviously that will increase the amount of fornication.

[Miscreant]

Not a single Bible verse in this thread so far. Isn't anyone going to cite the rule book? I know in fact the Bible says not one single thing about masturbation. People try grabbing verses and try applying them to masturbation, because that's all they have to work with, since the Bible says nothing about it. It talks about wet dreams even. But not masturbating.

And those anti-fap sites lie like hell about everything. Make all kinds of crap up. The Bible does directly forbid lying.

[Judean Zealot]

Not a single Bible verse in this thread so far. Isn't anyone going to cite the rule book? I know in fact the Bible says not one single thing about masturbation. People try grabbing verses and try applying them to masturbation, because that's all they have to work with, since the Bible says nothing about it. It talks about wet dreams even. But not masturbating.

And those anti-fap sites lie like hell about everything. Make all kinds of crap up. The Bible does directly forbid lying.

Neither Jews nor Catholics (who are the only ones in this thread defending the prohibition) view the Bible as the sole source of dogma and law. If you would like I can cite you from the Magisterium and Talmud.

[Pat the Bunny]

I'm aware that contraception has existed for centuries. However, widespread access to it, and social acceptability of its use, does (did) increase promiscuity. I don't get how this can be denied.

Teen pregnancy rate has actually been steadily declining for decades, while the teen sex rate hasn't changed much at all. Wouldn't that conclude that, at least int teens, kids were having just as much sex when it was harder to get contraception.

[Bull]

There are a lot of "spiritual leaders" who simply lie in order to convince people to accept their personal weird notions of what is right and wrong. They misapply scripture, whether it be Christian, Hebrew, Islam, or other religions, to their own perverted ends. Shame on them, and shame on us for being suckered into allowing them to control our lives. It is no wonder so many young people are turning away from organized religion.
And Arkansasguy, I am really sorry for your life situation. My advice for you: read the scripture for your self and let it speak to you, unfiltered by your spiritual leader. God gives each of us the ability to understand the message on our own.
I grew up attending a church that preached mixed bathing (swimming together), playing Go Fish, having wine with dinner,and dancing were sins. None of which is scripturally defined as a sin. Needless to say, now that I am an adult, I am no longer attending a church of that denomination. To God be the Glory!

[phuckphace]

I'm aware that contraception has existed for centuries. However, widespread access to it, and social acceptability of its use, does (did) increase promiscuity. I don't get how this can be denied.

here's another example: drugs. until the last half of the 20th century, you could freely stroll on down to the apothecary and pick up a big vial of opium and get totally fucked out of your mind on it, but almost nobody did, for the same reason condoms have been available for centuries but almost nobody used them to fornicate until relatively recently. the search for the culprit continues!

When you not only relax social disapproval of fornication...[...]

here's the culprit you're looking for. in a society where fornication and drug addiction is universally shamed, very few people will decide to fornicate or use drugs. it's probably a better use of your time to examine the "University campus" angle instead of railing against the sinful voodoo that gets stirred into each new batch of condoms. your argument uses the same logic that progressives use in favor of gun control ("guns cause murder!!") so you miiiiight want to look into that

[Arkansasguy]

the teen sex rate hasn't changed much at all.

If you believe that, I'd like to sell you a golden egg.

There are a lot of "spiritual leaders" who simply lie in order to convince people to accept their personal weird notions of what is right and wrong.

And they overwhelmingly tend to be Protestant.

And Arkansasguy, I am really sorry for your life situation.

I feel very sorry for you, seeing as how you've been taken in by the false doctrine of sola scriptura.

My advice for you: read the scripture for your self and let it speak to you, unfiltered by your spiritual leader.

My advice to you: Accept the spiritual authority founded by Jesus Christ, when he gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to St. Peter.

God gives each of us the ability to understand the message on our own.

If that were true, there wouldn't be thirty thousand and counting Protestant denominations.

I grew up attending a church that preached mixed bathing (swimming together), playing Go Fish, having wine with dinner,and dancing were sins.

Which is what happens when anyone can just interpret the Bible for himself.

here's another example: drugs. until the last half of the 20th century, you could freely stroll on down to the apothecary and pick up a big vial of opium and get totally fucked out of your mind on it, but almost nobody did, for the same reason condoms have been available for centuries but almost nobody used them to fornicate until relatively recently. the search for the culprit continues!



here's the culprit you're looking for. in a society where fornication and drug addiction is universally shamed, very few people will decide to fornicate or use drugs. it's probably a better use of your time to examine the "University campus" angle instead of railing against the sinful voodoo that gets stirred into each new batch of condoms. your argument uses the same logic that progressives use in favor of gun control ("guns cause murder!!") so you miiiiight want to look into that

Does it not seem like an odd coincidence that society began approving of fornication and contraception at the same time?

[Pat the Bunny]

Does it not seem like an odd coincidence that society began approving of fornication and contraception at the same time?

Contraception got accepted because sex got accepted, not the other way around. (Almost) nobody accepts contraception but doesn't accept sex, but people do the other way around.

[Bull]

My advice to you: Accept the spiritual authority founded by Jesus Christ, when he gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to St. Peter.


I absolutely accept the spiritual authority of Jesus Christ, He is my Lord and Savior. From your statement I assume you to be Catholic, which explains a lot about your posts on this and other threads. If my assumption is false, I apologize. And in no way do I or would I make light of one's faith.

[phuckphace]

I'd be Catholic if I were religious. especially if this were the medieval period, so I could wear chainmail and devote myself to defending the holy realm from the heathen

[Judean Zealot]

I'd be Catholic if I were religious. especially if this were the medieval period, so I could wear chainmail and devote myself to defending the holy realm from the heathen

How goes TLS?

[Miscreant]

Neither Jews nor Catholics (who are the only ones in this thread defending the prohibition) view the Bible as the sole source of dogma and law. If you would like I can cite you from the Magisterium and Talmud.

That stuff was written to add stuff to the Bible that isn't there. Wasn't the original work good enough? Why not toss in the Book of Mormon too?

[phuckphace]

How goes TLS?

pretty gr8 so far. review forthcoming when I finish it :)

[Judean Zealot]

That stuff was written to add stuff to the Bible that isn't there. Wasn't the original work good enough? Why not toss in the Book of Mormon too?

You sound as if something not being in the bible makes it second rate theology or something. No, the original work is not "enough", nor is it meant to be enough unless you're an addle brained Lutheran who views philosophy as the Satan's whore (his words, not mine). The Bible in and of itself is a vapid and unintelligible work, and I don't see a Sola Scriptura vantage as being in any way defensible.

[phuckphace]

I've met a few Sola Scriptura folks and they all belong to weird cultlike churches who shun everybody unless you sign their 250 page membership agreement declaring that you won't visit the doctor or drink caffeine

[Miscreant]

You sound as if something not being in the bible makes it second rate theology or something. No, the original work is not "enough", nor is it meant to be enough unless you're an addle brained Lutheran who views philosophy as the Satan's whore (his words, not mine). The Bible in and of itself is a vapid and unintelligible work, and I don't see a Sola Scriptura vantage as being in any way defensible.

If the original work is that questionable, then the spin-offs sound even more so.

[Judean Zealot]

If the original work is that questionable, then the spin-offs sound even more so.

The original work is not "questionable". It is just pretty much worthless without the oral tradition it was given with (the Talmud), or in the Catholic sense, church tradition.

Reason, philosophy, and tradition are the only way to understand the Bible, and I am willing to challenge anyone who disagrees with me to explain a number of things (without fedora tipping).

[phuckphace]

the Book of Mormon could certainly be described as a Biblical spin-off, but that's because Mormonism is a religion unto itself (space-Jesus, Jesus and Satan are bros irl, magic underwear etc.) not a great comparison c.f. Catholicism and the magisterium.

[Miscreant]

The original work is not "questionable". It is just pretty much worthless without the oral tradition it was given with (the Talmud), or in the Catholic sense, church tradition.

Reason, philosophy, and tradition are the only way to understand the Bible, and I am willing to challenge anyone who disagrees with me to explain a number of things (without fedora tipping).

Hey all I was doing was pointing that people were saying what Christianity claims about masturbation, without citing an official reference source. And naturally I focused on the Christian Bible as source material for Christian beliefs.

As for the tangent you took that on, the Christian Bible is supposed to be where what Jesus said is recorded. So since the words of Jesus are in the Bible, and the Bible according to you is worthless, then the whole foundation collapses.


the Book of Mormon could certainly be described as a Biblical spin-off, but that's because Mormonism is a religion unto itself (space-Jesus, Jesus and Satan are bros irl, magic underwear etc.) not a great comparison c.f. Catholicism and the magisterium.

I'm sure Catholicism contains just as much fanciful weirdness. And I'm sure if I Google "weird things Catholicism teaches", I won't come up empty handed.

[Judean Zealot]

Hey all I was doing was pointing that people were saying what Christianity claims about masturbation, without citing an official reference source. And naturally I focused on the Christian Bible as source material for Christian beliefs.

But this is my point. The Bible is not the only official source material for the Catholic or even the Anglican church.

As for the tangent you took that on, the Christian Bible is supposed to be where what Jesus said is recorded. So since the words of Jesus are in the Bible, and the Bible according to you is worthless, then the whole foundation collapses.


Again, I'm not saying that the bible is worthless. It is a veritable treasure trove- if you know how to interpret it. The Bible is only worthless if you view as the sole source of wisdom and of God's word.

[Bull]

This thread has gone so far a field from the op "Christian Opinions on Masturbation". My opinion is that masturbation is enjoyable and harms no one, including my relationship to my Lord and Savior. That's my opinion and I am done with this thread.

[Miscreant]

But this is my point. The Bible is not the only official source material for the Catholic or even the Anglican church.

But no one was citing from that either. People were making claims without backing them up, that was my point.

Again, I'm not saying that the bible is worthless. It is a veritable treasure trove- if you know how to interpret it. The Bible is only worthless if you view as the sole source of wisdom and of God's word.

That's backpedaling.

[Judean Zealot]

But no one was citing from that either. People were making claims without backing them up, that was my point.

Backed up by philosophy, that's hardly "not backed up". After all, that is the source of many magisterial teachings as well.



That's backpedaling.

It absolutely is not. Look back at my posts and you will see that that is what I've been saying all along.

[phuckphace]

Miscreant - I only mentioned Mormon theology to highlight the fact that it's distinct from Christianity proper.

[phuckphace]

Does it not seem like an odd coincidence that society began approving of fornication and contraception at the same time?

sorry, I missed this post.

not really, no. the social changes which led to acceptance of fornication are to blame for the ubiquity of contraceptives that are now used to facilitate it. this social acceptance is the critical factor at play here - if you were to travel back in time to a more conservative period with some Trojans and offer them to people with a quick run-down on their use ("you have as much no-strings-attached sex as you want!") you would be met with disgust and revulsion. the power of social acceptance in a non-atomized society is much, much more potent than the fornication-voodoo imbued in a pack of rubbers.

[Judean Zealot]

Masturbation is a misuse of the sexual faculty for a nonprocreative purpose, akin to sodomy.

To challenge this original point of yours, do you really see no distinction between Sodomy and masturbation? If nit, then how come the Mosaic law (which you'd agree was Gods law at least for some time) mandates the death penalty for sodomy but not for masturbation?

[Arkansasguy]

sorry, I missed this post.

not really, no. the social changes which led to acceptance of fornication are to blame for the ubiquity of contraceptives that are now used to facilitate it. this social acceptance is the critical factor at play here - if you were to travel back in time to a more conservative period with some Trojans and offer them to people with a quick run-down on their use ("you have as much no-strings-attached sex as you want!") you would be met with disgust and revulsion. the power of social acceptance in a non-atomized society is much, much more potent than the fornication-voodoo imbued in a pack of rubbers.

Do you realize that contraception (for married people) became socially acceptable a few decades before fornication did.

To challenge this original point of yours, do you really see no distinction between Sodomy and masturbation? If nit, then how come the Mosaic law (which you'd agree was Gods law at least for some time) mandates the death penalty for sodomy but not for masturbation?

Sodomy is somewhat worse than masturbation because it requires destroying the soul of another person, in addition to the misuse of the sexual faculty. But qua act they are basically the same thing.

That two things are morally comparable does not necessarily mean they should be treated similarly by civil law. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, but we shouldn't put the wrathful to death. So too, even though they are morally comparable, masturbation doesn't affect others as sodomy does, and thus should not be prohibited by law.

[Judean Zealot]

Sodomy is somewhat worse than masturbation because it requires destroying the soul of another person, in addition to the misuse of the sexual faculty. But qua act they are basically the same thing.

So what you're saying is that Sodomy is in fact worse than masturbation due to sodomy being masturbation+other evils, yet masturbation and sodomy share a particular element of wrongness. I think I can agree on that, albeit in a slightly different form.

That two things are morally comparable does not necessarily mean they should be treated similarly by civil law. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, but we shouldn't put the wrathful to death. So too, even though they are morally comparable, masturbation doesn't affect others as sodomy does, and thus should not be prohibited by law.

???

[Arkansasguy]

So what you're saying is that Sodomy is in fact worse than masturbation due to sodomy being masturbation+other evils, yet masturbation and sodomy share a particular element of wrongness. I think I can agree on that, albeit in a slightly different form.

Sodomy is worse than masturbation in the same way that getting assisted suicide is worse than doing it on your own. The other evil being scandal/adulation.

???

It's 1 John 3:15.

[Judean Zealot]

It's 1 John 3:15.

I am aware of that. I understood that verse that every man who hates his brother has within himself the same flaws as does the murderer, not that the hatred is truly equal to murder. I would view this verse akin to Proverbs 22:7- "The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender".

[Arkansasguy]

I am aware of that. I understood that verse that every man who hates his brother has within himself the same flaws as does the murderer, not that the hatred is truly equal to murder. I would view this verse akin to Proverbs 22:7- "The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender".

Correct. Internal hatred is not morally equal to murder, unless it causes one to actually wish to commit murder.

[Judean Zealot]

Correct. Internal hatred is not morally equal to murder, unless it causes one to actually wish to commit murder.

Just as masturbation is not morally equal to sodomy. I think we're on the same page.

[Miscreant]

Backed up by philosophy, that's hardly "not backed up". After all, that is the source of many magisterial teachings as well.

Just show me where masturbation is discussed. That's all I asked for. Is that too much to ask?

It absolutely is not. Look back at my posts and you will see that that is what I've been saying all along.

Right it's vapid and useless and yet a useful treasure trove. ;)

[Judean Zealot]

Just show me where masturbation is discussed. That's all I asked for. Is that too much to ask?


Right it's vapid and useless and yet a useful treasure trove. ;)

Bloody hell. Can't you read!?

Sola Scriptura=vapid and useless
With proper commentary=treasure trove.

Again, it's not expressed explicitly in the bible. So what? Do you want me to link you to the relevant Talmudic and Magisterial documents?

[Miscreant]

Bloody hell. Can't you read!?

Sola Scriptura=vapid and useless
With proper commentary=treasure trove.

Again, it's not expressed explicitly in the bible. So what? Do you want me to link you to the relevant Talmudic and Magisterial documents?

Yep. When people make claims, they should be able to back them up. No one in this thread backed up their claims at the time of my original post. And since you keep bringing up what does the Catholic Magisterium have to say about it? And are you saying the Christian viewpoints given regarding the issue at the time of my original post were based on Magisterium? If so lease show me where the comments made that triggered my original post in this thread tie in with the Catholic Magisterium. And finally, what does the Talmud have to with Christian opinions?

[Judean Zealot]

First of all, I have looked over the thread and I've realized my tone was unnecessarily nasty to you, so for that I apologise. I've had a rough week.

Yep. When people make claims, they should be able to back them up. No one in this thread backed up their claims at the time of my original post. I understood you as asking the whole time for scriptural backing, which does not exist. But never mind, I'll source you to the Catholic and Jewish sources, and make the best case I can for Protestants.

And since you keep bringing up what does the Catholic Magisterium have to say about it?

Par. 2352 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM):

By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.

And are you saying the Christian viewpoints given regarding the issue at the time of my original post were based on Magisterium? Yes. Arkansasguy is a Catholic, and he was the only Christian saying it was forbidden.

As I've mentioned earlier, via a Sola Scriptura outlook it is hard to find grounds for it's prohibition, but a possible account would be because masturbation is almost invariably accompanied by lustful thoughts, and is prohibited by way of that.

And finally, what does the Talmud have to with Christian opinions?

The OP clearly writes that this thread is not exclusively for Christian views:

Ok so I found this website called stopmasturbating.org (a Christian website which is why I am asking the opinions of Christians but others can answer if they like)

Since I was the only other person saying masturbation is wrong, I feel the Talmud's position is quite relevant. The Talmudic prohibition is in the second chapter of tractate Niddah. I apologise for not linking you, as I couldn't find a decent English translation online.

[Miscreant]

First of all, I have looked over the thread and I've realized my tone was unnecessarily nasty to you, so for that I apologise. I've had a rough week.

I understood you as asking the whole time for scriptural backing, which does not exist. But never mind, I'll source you to the Catholic and Jewish sources, and make the best case I can for Protestants.



Par. 2352 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM):

By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.

Yes. Arkansasguy is a Catholic, and he was the only Christian saying it was forbidden.

As I've mentioned earlier, via a Sola Scriptura outlook it is hard to find grounds for it's prohibition, but a possible account would be because masturbation is almost invariably accompanied by lustful thoughts, and is prohibited by way of that.



The OP clearly writes that this thread is not exclusively for Christian views:



Since I was the only other person saying masturbation is wrong, I feel the Talmud's position is quite relevant. The Talmudic prohibition is in the second chapter of tractate Niddah. I apologise for not linking you, as I couldn't find a decent English translation online.

This has dragged out so long I barely have a vested interest in it any longer. It would have been nice if you had just said something like, "you're right the Bible doesn't say anything directly, but the Catechism does". Which it does, in an obscure way in my opinion. And I seriously doubt Arkansas guy or most any other average Christian knows of its existence. The Talmudic source seems even more obscure.

As a side note, I think you're probably a nice guy who means well, but tbh it sounded to me like you were trying to imitate some old professor of yours.

[Judean Zealot]

This has dragged out so long I barely have a vested interest in it any longer. It would have been nice if you had just said something like, "you're right the Bible doesn't say anything directly, but the Catechism does".

I did (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3261307&postcount=35). :)

As a side note, I think you're probably a nice guy who means well, but tbh it sounded to me like you were trying to imitate some old professor of yours.

Nah. You don't hang out in ROTW enough, bruh.

[Arkansasguy]

This has dragged out so long I barely have a vested interest in it any longer. It would have been nice if you had just said something like, "you're right the Bible doesn't say anything directly, but the Catechism does". Which it does, in an obscure way in my opinion. And I seriously doubt Arkansas guy or most any other average Christian knows of its existence. The Talmudic source seems even more obscure.

As a side note, I think you're probably a nice guy who means well, but tbh it sounded to me like you were trying to imitate some old professor of yours.

It's not at all obscure. And yes, I knew full well of it.

[Miscreant]

It's not at all obscure. And yes, I knew full well of it.

I doubt that many know off hand where to open up the Catechism to Par. 2352 to find that info. So you're telling me that you were already fully familiar with that passage all along? Because really usually the only Catholics who are that familiar with the Catechism to that degree are seminary students.

[Miscreant]

I did (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3261307&postcount=35). :)

Right and that long rigmarole you added was just my imagination.

Nah. You don't hang out in ROTW enough, bruh.

No, but I've been in other places like it plenty.

[Judean Zealot]

I doubt that many know off hand where to open up the Catechism to Par. 2352 to find that info. So you're telling me that you were already fully familiar with that passage all along? Because really usually the only Catholics who are that familiar with the Catechism to that degree are seminary students.

The Catechism is divided by subjects, so if you've even read through it once you can easily find whatever you need. I'm thoroughly familiar with the Catechism and I'm Jewish.

In any event, every argument that Arkansasguy said was literally taken out of that section of the Catechism, so it would seem that he was familiar with it.

The "rigmarole" I added was in response to your response that implied Sola Scriptura methodology.

[lliam]

Although I'm not a Christian, but I think to a Christian it should not be a problem to masturbate. Or even for believers of whatever religion they belong to.


If God hadn't wanted us to apply on such physical and mental instrument of regulation like masturbating, he wouldn't have given us the ability to masturbate.

As long as someone doesn't overdo it with that masturbation thing, there's also no harm, i guess.