Masturbation: A sin?
Moderator: Moderators
Masturbation: A sin?
Post #1I just saw a television discussion about it, what is the Christian believe?
-
commonsense
- Student
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:09 pm
is masterbation against the christian belief
Post #31absolutely this verse plainly states that lustful thoughts are sinful because you must lust while masterbating no one can masterbate and think of mowing the lawn it is impossible this shouldn't even be that controversial i would say it is one of the most accepted sins out there i know people i think are great guys and then they just start talking about how sexually arousing a person is to them and masterbation if anyone wants more verses just ask i can get more
Mat 5:27-28 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.
Mat 5:27-28 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.
-
vanillamoon
- Student
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:21 am
Post #32
Is this question based on one type of Christianity or Christianity in general? If so then what about some denominations who might think masturbation is bad. I think Mormons do... Or maybe that's just sex before marraige??? 
Post #33
I believe the correct interpretation of the Onan story is that it was a sin of pride and greed, not a sin of emission, as it were.otseng wrote:whatever wrote:I think the reason why it was considered a sin was because of the whole issue of wasting reproductive material… Also isn’t there something about someone withdrawing prior to ejaculation and god striking him down out of anger?
I believe you are referring to Gen 38.
Gen 38:7-10 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
Though it could be interpreted as you have mentioned, the context was not in having "wasted reproductive material", but in not continuing the line of Er. Also, I would not describe Onan's actions as masturbation, but rather withdrawal contraception.
Because Onan's own children would not be regarded as his own, he did not complete the act -- out of personal pride and the desire to have a first-born inheritance in his family. The child of such a union, being legally recognized as the heir, would be the inheritor of the Judah estate, and not Onan.
Re: is masterbation against the christian belief
Post #34I'm curious, is there a scriptural difference and consequence between sinning in the heart and sinning in the flesh? I understand that the tenth commandment is "coveting" thy neighbor's wife. Is it a lesser evil to covet an unmarried woman? Is it an evil at all?commonsense wrote: they just start talking about how sexually arousing a person is to them and masterbation if anyone wants more verses just ask i can get more
Mat 5:27-28 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.
Re: is masterbation against the christian belief
Post #35What if the woman is not real, and is entirely a figment of the artist's imagination reproduced on canvas? And what if you aren't aroused by a woman at all, but an inanimate object, such as the sensual feel of a piece of leather or silk, or the beautiful arabesques we see on illuminated korans? I don't see why the subject of one's lusts must necessarily be people or living things, and what is wrong if one really, really likes the weight and dimensions of a stone or the colours of a flower? Yes, I would like more verses, please.commonsense wrote:absolutely this verse plainly states that lustful thoughts are sinful because you must lust while masterbating no one can masterbate and think of mowing the lawn it is impossible this shouldn't even be that controversial i would say it is one of the most accepted sins out there i know people i think are great guys and then they just start talking about how sexually arousing a person is to them and masterbation if anyone wants more verses just ask i can get more
Mat 5:27-28 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.
Last edited by Corvus on Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<i>'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'</i>
-John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn.
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'</i>
-John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn.
Post #36
Guilt, by itself, is a good thing if it discourages us from doing wrong. The question becomes, what is wrong? I think that the early Catholic church leaders applied the concept of guilt to a lot of things that it should never have been applied to, in a mostly successful attempt to gain even more control over the ignorant masses. Times have changed, we are not the uneducated peasants that once were so easily controlled by priests and kings (who supposedly ruled by divine right, according to the church).
I had a catholic friend tell me once that masturbation is allowed for sailors at sea, since there were no women present. He also said that he was taught that it was better to "cast your seed into the belly of a whore than to masturbate". Don't know if there is any scriptural reference to that or not, and I suspect not. The early church made up a lot of things to suit the goals of the popes, and they even admit it.
The really odd thing to me is that this kind of thing gets carried on, and on, and on. A lot of morality issues that were barely discussed in the scriptures have taken too much of our time in and out of church, at the expense of the more important concepts of Christianity.
We have the moral majority out policing the rest of the world instead of following the basic commandments as given by Christ in the NT.
In other words, our priorities are askew when we worry about such trivial matters instead of going out and doing the good that Christ has asked us to do.
I had a catholic friend tell me once that masturbation is allowed for sailors at sea, since there were no women present. He also said that he was taught that it was better to "cast your seed into the belly of a whore than to masturbate". Don't know if there is any scriptural reference to that or not, and I suspect not. The early church made up a lot of things to suit the goals of the popes, and they even admit it.
The really odd thing to me is that this kind of thing gets carried on, and on, and on. A lot of morality issues that were barely discussed in the scriptures have taken too much of our time in and out of church, at the expense of the more important concepts of Christianity.
We have the moral majority out policing the rest of the world instead of following the basic commandments as given by Christ in the NT.
In other words, our priorities are askew when we worry about such trivial matters instead of going out and doing the good that Christ has asked us to do.
Post #37
The fact that a woman may or may not be a real person is irrelevant, since you have to use your own imagination to "lust after her," and so the problem obviously resides in the effects of the act on one's self, not in the effects of the act on the woman.
As far as becoming aroused by inanimate objects, that is unnatural. Anyone that is sexually stimulated by a stone or a flower has changed from being in a normal state to an, you guessed it, abnormal state. A common term that comes to mind is perversion. But I'm not accusing you, Corvus. We're all just trying to get our questions answered. The thing is, the human body works like it is supposed to, and that is not how it is supposed to. Thus the same concept applies to homosexuality.
Is this a sin? I have to leave right now so I'll make it quick. I believe God created sexual organs for one purpose, that is, sex. Any kind of substitute goes against His purpose.
And someone will probably ask me why I believe that, and I can answer some other time.
As far as becoming aroused by inanimate objects, that is unnatural. Anyone that is sexually stimulated by a stone or a flower has changed from being in a normal state to an, you guessed it, abnormal state. A common term that comes to mind is perversion. But I'm not accusing you, Corvus. We're all just trying to get our questions answered. The thing is, the human body works like it is supposed to, and that is not how it is supposed to. Thus the same concept applies to homosexuality.
Is this a sin? I have to leave right now so I'll make it quick. I believe God created sexual organs for one purpose, that is, sex. Any kind of substitute goes against His purpose.
And someone will probably ask me why I believe that, and I can answer some other time.
Post #38
A question I've asked a million people and have yet to get an answer that isn't based on one's individual beliefs...FresaRoja wrote: The thing is, the human body works like it is supposed to, and that is not how it is supposed to. Thus the same concept applies to homosexuality.
Who decides what constitutes normal?
If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution,
then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.
then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.
Post #39
Well, there is nobody designated to say what constitutes normal. The reason you only get people's beliefs is because that is their opinion.Who decides what constitutes normal?
But, we can discuss things according to logic, and thereby decide for ourselves that something is factual. So, in other words, we can talk about normal and what it means and come to a conclusion that logically makes sense and must be true. Not because of anyone's beliefs but because it simply must be so if the universe is one of order. (if the universe is one of chaos then there's really no point to anything.)
Except, when you say normal, do you mean:
normal, as used in this thread's context or
normal, as used in any context?
Post #40
Here are some thoughts about our instincs for sex and security
"The story of the evolution of marriage is simply the history of sex control through the pressure of social, religious, and civil restrictions. Nature hardly recognizes individuals; it takes no cognizance of so-called morals; it is only and exclusively interested in the reproduction of the species. Nature compellingly insists on reproduction but indifferently leaves the consequential problems to be solved by society, thus creating an ever-present and major problem for evolutionary mankind. This social conflict consists in the unending war between basic instincts and evolving ethics..."
"...There always have been and always will be two distinct realms of marriage: the mores, the laws regulating the external aspects of mating, and the otherwise secret and personal relations of men and women. Always has the individual been rebellious against the regulations imposed by society; and this is the reason for this agelong sex problem: Self-maintenance is individual but is carried on by the group; self-perpetuation is social but is secured by individual impulse..."
"...The mores, when respected, have ample power to restrain and control sex urge, as has been shown among all races. Marriage standards have always been a true indicator of the current power of the mores and the functional integrity of the civil government. But the early sex and mating mores were a mass of inconsistent and crude regulations. Parents, children, relatives, and society all had conflicting interests in the marriage regulations. But in spite of all this, those races which exalted and practiced marriage naturally evolved to higher levels and survived in increasing numbers..."
"The story of the evolution of marriage is simply the history of sex control through the pressure of social, religious, and civil restrictions. Nature hardly recognizes individuals; it takes no cognizance of so-called morals; it is only and exclusively interested in the reproduction of the species. Nature compellingly insists on reproduction but indifferently leaves the consequential problems to be solved by society, thus creating an ever-present and major problem for evolutionary mankind. This social conflict consists in the unending war between basic instincts and evolving ethics..."
"...There always have been and always will be two distinct realms of marriage: the mores, the laws regulating the external aspects of mating, and the otherwise secret and personal relations of men and women. Always has the individual been rebellious against the regulations imposed by society; and this is the reason for this agelong sex problem: Self-maintenance is individual but is carried on by the group; self-perpetuation is social but is secured by individual impulse..."
"...The mores, when respected, have ample power to restrain and control sex urge, as has been shown among all races. Marriage standards have always been a true indicator of the current power of the mores and the functional integrity of the civil government. But the early sex and mating mores were a mass of inconsistent and crude regulations. Parents, children, relatives, and society all had conflicting interests in the marriage regulations. But in spite of all this, those races which exalted and practiced marriage naturally evolved to higher levels and survived in increasing numbers..."
