Masturbation- is it wrong?

[hecter]

Well, now we're in a bit of a different argument, and that is:

Does a figment of your imagination qualify as an object?

I say it does, you say it doesn't.

[Riao]

Well, now we're in a bit of a different argument, and that is:

Does a figment of your imagination qualify as an object?

I say it does, you say it doesn't.

lol. Yeah that does get to the heart of it. The closest I could come to agreeing with you would be with the argument that you would be lusting after your own mind.

But that just sounds ridiculous.


EDIT ->> I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[CrazyAnglican]

All right then; here's one for you:

It seems that as far as the morality of the bible goes, everyone here seems to think that it's not the act of masturbation that is the sin, but the lustful thoughts that accompany it, right?

Then is it ok, biblically concerned, to masturbate while thinking about a woman you've invented in your own mind? In that way you're not actually lusting after anyone.

It's an interesting thought, but I think that you are missing an important point about sin. It isn't what you are doing to another person that is always the issue, but what you are turning yourself into. To lust about any other person (real or imagined) is to subjugate them. Essentially saying they exist to please you. That isn't a healthy way to look at other people. Chances are you aren't thinking "Man I'd really like to raise a family with her. I wonder what her career goals are and if she wants kids". Lust is not about what the object wants. Love is about what the object wants.

If you fantasize about someone you are making them up. They become a figment of your imagination. You control them; they behave in ways that you decide. You've created an automaton and clothed it in the skin of someone you know. There is no "real" person in your imagination.

So what? Why is that a problem? Well, on the surface, it probably isn't. It is, however, a stepping off point to physically acting on your fantasies. When that happens you are harming others. Voyeurism, lechery, adultery, rape, necrophilia, and even at the most extreme serial murder are all on the same continuum. Even if you never harm another person, what may come of a habit of thinking that others are merely there for your pleasure? Are you likely to be tolerant, forgiving, or truly loving toward them?

[Riao]

I think you've missed my point. I'm not talking about imagining anyone I know or have seen. I'm talking about inventing someone purely in my imagination in the same way a fictional writer invents someone in their stories. Body, face, eyes, hair, skin, clothing (or the lack thereof) -- everything. I'm not talking about inventing a personality and then "skinning" that personality in the body of someone I know or have seen.

Therefore this is not a "stepping off point to physically acting on your fantasies." It is not "essentially saying they exist to please" me. The woman in the fantasy does not exist so it is impossible to act upon it.

Even if you never harm another person, what may come of a habit of thinking that others are merely there for your pleasure? Are you likely to be tolerant, forgiving, or truly loving toward them?

Since there is no "other" that is being thought about, I would not be thinking that anyone is there simply for my own pleasure.

Actually, even if the person was real, I would never end up thinking that this person was there simply for my own pleasure. That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Voyeurism, lechery, adultery, rape, necrophilia, and even at the most extreme serial murder are all on the same continuum.

To say that masturbation leads to these things is crazy.

EDIT--->>

Actually, even if the person was real, I would never end up thinking that this person was there simply for my own pleasure. That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Unless I'm watching a porno. In this case the woman actually is there for my own (and other's) pleasure, at least for the duration of the video.

[b.k. barunt]

As to hecter's question about wanking while thinking about your wife, i can't see how that would be deemed a sin. When my wife and i split up for three years, i wrote her a plaintive love song, which is now being played a lot on an underground radio station, and by local musicians in Santa Cruz, CA. I never did name it, but people refer to it by the last line of each of the three verses, which is "chokin my chicken, and thinkin of you".

[hecter]

Chances are you aren't thinking "Man I'd really like to raise a family with her. I wonder what her career goals are and if she wants kids".

Not at that moment, no. But I don't imagine you're thinking about your career goals while you have sex either.

Lust is not about what the object wants. Love is about what the object wants.

Can't you have both? I don't want to get into any details, but maybe you fantasize about what you BOTH want. Maybe your girlfriend WANTED to give you those naked pictures of her so that you could "enjoy" yourself. Maybe you're thinking of a past sexual experience with your husband that you both enjoyed.

[Riao]

Chances are you aren't thinking "Man I'd really like to raise a family with her. I wonder what her career goals are and if she wants kids".

Not at that moment, no. But I don't imagine you're thinking about your career goals while you have sex either.

Lust is not about what the object wants. Love is about what the object wants.

Can't you have both? I don't want to get into any details, but maybe you fantasize about what you BOTH want. Maybe your girlfriend WANTED to give you those naked pictures of her so that you could "enjoy" yourself. Maybe you're thinking of a past sexual experience with your husband that you both enjoyed.

To add to this, I actually enjoy it when I am lusted after. It's flattering and is nice to hear, even if I'm uninterested in the person lusting after me. So the simple act of lust then actually can be an act of kindness... it can make someone feel good about themselves.

[CrazyAnglican]

Lust is not about what the object wants. Love is about what the object wants.

Can't you have both? I don't want to get into any details, but maybe you fantasize about what you BOTH want. Maybe your girlfriend WANTED to give you those naked pictures of her so that you could "enjoy" yourself. Maybe you're thinking of a past sexual experience with your husband that you both enjoyed.

Sure, but when you are both engaged in making each other happy that's love not lust. It's exactly the distiction that I made earlier. Remember I was responding to the sin of lust not the act of masturbation, which really isn't a big issue for me.

[Beastly]

Matthew 5:27&28. Supporting verses about lust in general: Galatians 5:16, James 1:14&15, 1 John 2:16

Maybe matthew 5 is trying to show that women are more than mere sexual objects....

I have a man friend who is in his 70's and he loves me, not romantically but loves me as a person. He treats me like a boyfriend would treat a girlfriend, He knows that I am happily married, but he loves me as a women with no lust in his heart.

Jesus being of a perfect nature I believe saw women this way.




James 15:
Then the evil desire, when it has conceived, gives birth to sin, and sin, when it is fully matured, brings forth death.

So you can masturbate to death?


You still did not show me where Jesus commanded anything... you just put question marks!

and what if someone loves Jesus so much that they masturbate thinking of being with him in heaven?

would that be wrong?

So its not the act of masturbation that is the sin... Its the thoughts while doing so...

I am not a man, so i don't know if its possible to choke the chicken without lusting...


Thank you Mr. Nate I can see how religion now teaches that masturbation is wrong, however....

by what i see, just looking at a woman without masturbating is just as bad

As a woman who use to masturbate after the divorce, and still masturbates only in front of husband now, I can tell you that It was the touch that makes me turned on, not thinking of a man...

It is the touch. I did not even like men after my divorce the thought of one would make me puke! If a woman was to touch me, it would be the same as a man. Its the feeling of the touch. Not fantasizing about anybody.

I don't know if men can masturbate without lusting or not?

But clearly if they can, its not wrong then.... right?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Maybe matthew 5 is trying to show that women are more than mere sexual objects....

What it says is what it says. And it says that lust = adultery. That's a pretty serious matter, and you can't tap-dance around it what it means- he's pretty blunt about it.

I have a man friend who is in his 70's and he loves me, not romantically but loves me as a person. He treats me like a boyfriend would treat a girlfriend, He knows that I am happily married, but he loves me as a women with no lust in his heart.

Jesus being of a perfect nature I believe saw women this way.

That's great, and all, but when someone's jacking off that's NOT what is in their mind. Don't think I need to go into detail.

Then the evil desire, when it has conceived, gives birth to sin, and sin, when it is fully matured, brings forth death.

So you can masturbate to death?

In general, when the Bible speaks of "death", it means "damnation".

You still did not show me where Jesus commanded anything... you just put question marks!

"I say to you, whoever lusts a woman has committed adultery with her in his heart."

That combined with "If you love me, follow the commandments" seems to mean that we're not supposed to lust.

and what if someone loves Jesus so much that they masturbate thinking of being with him in heaven?

Are you kidding?

So its not the act of masturbation that is the sin... Its the thoughts while doing so...

Masturbation is inherently an act of lust. It takes something which God gave us to be between a man and a woman, and makes it with only one person. It brings about pleasure which is psychologically linked with lust.

I am not a man, so i don't know if its possible to choke the chicken without lusting...

Doubt it. "The mind is the greatest sexual organ", is the maxim.

by what i see, just looking at a woman without masturbating is just as bad

Well, you might say that, but here's he catch.

If a man passes a hot lady in a bikini or something, he's naturally and unconsciously going to give her a second look. You could, I guess, call that lust. However, it's not a sin, because you had no control over it- you did not intentionally lust the woman. If you immediately pick your mind up out of the gutter, you're good.

But if you go into the bathroom and ACT on that lust, namely, in the form of masturbation, then you're sinning. Same if you just keep on looking at those knockers. It's a conscious action upon lust, which is what makes it so wrong.

I don't know if men can masturbate without lusting or not?

I suppose it's possible, but the sexual stimulation inevitably leads to lust. It puts yourself in the near occasion of sin. The hormones triggered by the stimulation of the penis do affect the mind, and make you think of things you wouldn't have ordinarily thought of. It's like tying yourself to a railroad track. You're asking for it.

[gethine]

just quoting from a single source continuously seems a little one sided. could i just start quoting romeo and juliet, or harry potter if it helped an argument?

[CrazyAnglican]

I'm not talking about imagining anyone I know or have seen. I'm talking about inventing someone purely in my imagination in the same way a fictional writer invents someone in their stories. Body, face, eyes, hair, skin, clothing (or the lack thereof) -- everything. I'm not talking about inventing a personality and then "skinning" that personality in the body of someone I know or have seen.

Whether you fantasize about an entirely fictional person or a person you know, the object of your fantasy is entirely under your control. Regardless of what it looks like, it's a figment of your imagination because it behaves in the way your imagine it should. It appeared that most of the rest of your argument centered around a hypothetical fictional fantasy and how it would be different due to this. Fantasies are fictional so there is no difference. If you are remembering a sexual encounter then it is memory not fantasy.

Voyeurism, lechery, adultery, rape, necrophilia, and even at the most extreme serial murder are all on the same continuum.

To say that masturbation leads to these things is crazy.

Which I didn't say, actually, I said that all of these things are also sins associated with lust. I don't think that if you masturbate, you'll become a serial killer. I certainly do not attribute the type of megalomania, that I used to make the point, to you or anyone else on the site. I was merely responding to your hypothetical question about a fictional fantasy.

In essence, you were right initially, masturbation is trivial and lust is not. Lust is selfish; love is selfless. Christians are called upon to love others and lusting after them gets in the way of that.

[Hitman079]

I have an off-topic question: When did hecter become a debater?

I've always enjoyed a bit of discussion on such things, I just kinda stopped for a while as none of them interested me.

i remember disproving hecter trying to present God as a tyrant when he used bible verses against Him.

[Beastly]

I just find it hard to believe that a god that is so loving that he allows himself to be crucified, would want a man to have blue balls and be in pain.

If a man is divorced, or even a married man who has a non existent sex life, and is expected to live the rest of his life with wet dreams, well that's just pathetic.

It all cums down to a matter of opinion.

I say wack it and don't worry about it...

Maybe Christ allowed himself to die just so everyone can masturbate.

[Norse]

[MR. Nate]

I just find it hard to believe that a god that is so loving that he allows himself to be crucified, would want a man to have blue balls and be in pain.

If a man is divorced, or even a married man who has a non existent sex life, and is expected to live the rest of his life with wet dreams, well that's just pathetic.

It seems like the concept of Christian love your promoting is a little skewed. Christ offered suffering on earth for His followers. Blue balls is pretty minor compared to torture, jeers and flogging, put in chains and put in prison. Being stoned, sawed in two, put to death by the sword being destitute, persecuted and mistreated, wandering in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

Maybe Christ allowed himself to die just so everyone can masturbate.

Christ didn't die to make us happy on earth. He actually said to expect to be attacked. He DID say that in heaven, we will be made complete in Him. It's a trade off, short term suffering for long term security.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I just find it hard to believe that a god that is so loving that he allows himself to be crucified, would want a man to have blue balls and be in pain.

In my experience, it is not painful to go without masturbating. The only time my testicles have hurt is when they got nailed with a soccer ball.

It all cums down to a matter of opinion.

That's an odd thing for a Christian to say, especially a Protestant. What the Bible says is what the Bible says. "If you love me, keep my commandments." One of those commandments was not to lust. There's no opinion about it.

[firth4eva]

if its so wrong why does it feel so right?

anyway being serious. christians used to believe that an orgasm was contact with god. the most pleasure you feel because you are with god. or something like that

[Norse]

Christianity is an evil faith, and to be fair so is islam and judaism.

You guys should seriously learn to chill the f*ck out and lighten up a bit.

I'm going for a wank.

[CrazyAnglican]

Christianity is an evil faith, and to be fair so is islam and judaism.

Judaism:

Don't murder others.
Be happy with what you have; don't covet or steal.
Keep one day set aside to take it easy every week
Don't get caught up in transitory things
Be faithful to your spouse.

Christianity:

Love one another as I have loved you (to the point of giving your life for
another should that become necessary)

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

I'm not sure about Islam, never read the Koran, but I'm sure it's equally evil and subversive

Just out of curiosity what do you consider good? I've remained quite calm by the way

[Norse]

Christianity, judeaism and islam have all been used as a means to create consensus. They have historically played upon the fears of vulnerable communities in order to bring them under the control of the religious leaders.

Christianity, which was originally (from my point of view) a foreign agenda effectively wiped out the traditions and practices of indo-european tribes.

That sounds to me as though christianity effectively stole the identity of an entire group of people. What more, the heirarchal structuring and make up effectively introduced and justified the subjugation of woman.

Religious leaders with the help of politicians in the past have effectively killed millions of young men in the name of your religion. Christianity is also a very backward religion, with archaic opinions on modern issues, not to mention the true belief that 'evoloution' and the 'big bang' is a myth.

Once I used to hold the opinion that Christianity was useful for weak people who need hope, but I really believe now that it is time to close the book on your medieval BS.

Any questions?

[CrazyAnglican]

Christianity, judeaism and islam have all been used as a means to create consensus. They have historically played upon the fears of vulnerable communities in order to bring them under the control of the religious leaders. Christianity, which was originally (from my point of view) a foreign agenda effectively wiped out the traditions and practices of indo-european tribes.

I've often wondered why Christian countries all have the same cultures and traditions; France being so similar to the Republic of Georgia.

That sounds to me as though christianity effectively stole the identity of an entire group of people. What more, the heirarchal structuring and make up effectively introduced and justified the subjugation of woman.

Again each area kept it's own culture. Please document where a specific country was made to adopt an entirely foreign identity in this manner, much less by the Christian churches. It's a lovely theory.

Religious leaders with the help of politicians in the past have effectively killed millions of young men in the name of your religion.

Really? Christians have perpetrated the deaths of so many. I suppose of course that atheistic politicians never send people off to their deaths in the name of the state or of internal security. Never heard of Josef Stalin? Pol Pot? I suppose that in this case atheism is every bit as evil. Or do we agree that evil people will use whatever is handy to perpetrate their crimes? Once again, What do you consider good?

Christianity is also a very backward religion, with archaic opinions on modern issues, not to mention the true belief that 'evoloution' and the 'big bang' is a myth.

If you'd like to know what I think about these issues ask me. Many scientists are Christians and are contributing greatly in this area. By all means, try to cast us all in the light of a small minority though. I'm sure it might work eventually.

Once I used to hold the opinion that Christianity was useful for weak people who need hope, but I really believe now that it is time to close the book on your medieval BS.

Any questions?

No, you haven't lost me yet, but I'll try to keep up.

[Norse]

I'm suprised that you are so vehemently against masturbation, you seem like a 'grade A' wanker to me.

suppose of course that atheistic politicians never send people off to their deaths in the name of the state or of internal security

So this makes religious wars ok does it? So therefore the deaths caused by atheistic politicians justify the many millions of those who perished in the crusades and other christian ventures?

Again each area kept it's own culture. Please document where a specific country was made to adopt an entirely foreign identity in this manner, much less by the Christian churches.

Of course, you do tend to see many shrines to Odin scattered around the Germanic region, and Obodorittes practising thier slavic rituals.

In fact at the moment, I'm running around in a viking helmet enacting my anticipated einherjar status in valhalla.

If you'd like to know what I think about these issues ask me. Many scientists are Christians and are contributing greatly in this area. By all means, try to cast us all in the light of a small minority though. I'm sure it might work eventually.

I'm not particularly interested in what you have to say about anything, since christians are extremely annoying and have a tendancy of twisting a logical debate into a profound, god-bothering mission statement.

Feel free to elaborate on the well documented sexism/peadophillia/embesslement that goes on within UK religious establishments.

And you say that choking the chicken is evil??

[Riao]

Christianity, judeaism and islam have all been used as a means to create consensus. They have historically played upon the fears of vulnerable communities in order to bring them under the control of the religious leaders.

Christianity, which was originally (from my point of view) a foreign agenda effectively wiped out the traditions and practices of indo-european tribes.

That sounds to me as though christianity effectively stole the identity of an entire group of people. What more, the heirarchal structuring and make up effectively introduced and justified the subjugation of woman.

Religious leaders with the help of politicians in the past have effectively killed millions of young men in the name of your religion. Christianity is also a very backward religion, with archaic opinions on modern issues, not to mention the true belief that 'evoloution' and the 'big bang' is a myth.

Once I used to hold the opinion that Christianity was useful for weak people who need hope, but I really believe now that it is time to close the book on your medieval BS.

Any questions?

Norse, most of these arguments (if not all) are based on Catholicism rather than Christianity itself. It can certainly be argued that the Catholic church caused pain and suffering on the level of the more aggressive governments in history. Christianity in itself is a faith only and does not necessitate any real organization.

Whether you fantasize about an entirely fictional person or a person you know, the object of your fantasy is entirely under your control. Regardless of what it looks like, it's a figment of your imagination because it behaves in the way your imagine it should. It appeared that most of the rest of your argument centered around a hypothetical fictional fantasy and how it would be different due to this. Fantasies are fictional so there is no difference. If you are remembering a sexual encounter then it is memory not fantasy.

I still don't think you quite understand what I was saying earlier. Of course there's a difference. I was arguing that if something does not exist then I cannot lust after that something. What does it matter if I control the fantasy? I'm only exercising my imagination without lusting after ANYONE.

I suppose of course that atheistic politicians never send people off to their deaths in the name of the state or of internal security. Never heard of Josef Stalin? Pol Pot?

I didn't realize that they were atheists. In any case they did not kill anyone in the name of atheism. It was for other reasons, which you stated yourself. The point is moot. The Catholics killed because people did not believe what they wanted them to believe.

[hecter]

I don't think that ANY religion (or lack thereof) is inherently evil, but the people that drive are. Atheism is not evil (I am an atheist and I have my own moral values and comprehension of good and evil) though Stalin was. I would give my life to save another, I would not kill unless they were trying to kill me, ect. ect. as a life is important, and murder is a horrendous thing. Masturbation and lust, on the other hand, are perfectly fine (unless of course it becomes a driving force in you're life and you are completely obsessed with it, which is always bad) as they do not hurt anybody. I lust and I do not regret it one bit. I would never let that lust take over, as my morals and sense of what is right and what is wrong would not allow me to do that. But, as I stated before, lust if perfectly fine in my book. Does that make me evil? I am an atheist, just like Stalin was. Stalin was a horrible dictator and responsible for the deaths of thousands. I lust. We both share the same religion (that is, lack of one), so does that make us equal in our evilness? There are hundreds of atheists that do good things. There are hundreds that do bad. If there were more of us, there would of course be thousands... But, there are thousands of Christians that do good, and thousands that do bad. There are thousands of Jews that do good, and thousands that do bad. There are thousands of Muslims that do good, and thousands that do bad. ect. ect. Of course, there are some more... notable evil doers in each religion. Stalin, of course, stands out. The crusades, stand out. 9/11 stands out. Do these bad things make the entire religion a bad thing? No, they don't. Why should the religion be condemned for the actions of a few notable instances? It just doesn't seem right to me. Accusing each other of inherently being evil (or your religion being evil) just creates chaos and anger and, eventually, more of these "notable instances".

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to be quite so long...