• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Fiance masturbates and it causes insecurity for me

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
not even sure what you think here, lack of sleep will kill you, lack of food will kill you, not breathing will kills you, do I really need to find medical research to evidence this to you, when we stop sleeping we go crazy then die, when we stop eating we have all kinds of things happen, then over time we die. These are basic common understandings that even elementary children know, and your trying to argue it? What do you think you gain from this type argument? Hint: Nothing except looking silly.

I don't see how this makes me look silly. I say you will fall asleep if you try to keep yourself awake by your own will, and unconscious and start breathing again if you try to hold your breath by your own will. You respond that I'm a moron and that not eating will kill you, and you pretend there are studies that contradict what I said. OK, ignoring that you lie by pretending I said fasting won't kill you (which incidentally calls into question your honesty and reliability as an interpreter of scripture), let's see those studies you offered. Go ahead, make an even bigger fool of yourself by showing studies that don't contradict what I said.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't see how this makes me look silly. I say you will fall asleep if you try to keep yourself awake by your own will,
you do know don't you that if you fall asleep, you are not going without sleep, right? Without sleep one dies, that is the claim, you argue that I am wrong because if you get sleep, you won't die...that is just a silly argument...you won't die without sleep because you if you sleep you aren't gonna die from lack of sleep....there is not even anything about that argument that is NOT silly.
and unconscious and start breathing again if you try to hold your breath by your own will.
again, the claim was that if you don't breath you will die and you reply, but if you breath you won't die, so your wrong...that is a silly argument....
You respond that I'm a moron
I never called anyone a moron, never suggested it either, what I said is that your arguments that are suppose to be against what I said, are silly.
and that not eating will kill you, and you pretend there are studies that contradict what I said. OK, ignoring that you lie by pretending I said fasting won't kill you (which incidentally calls into question your honesty and reliability as an interpreter of scripture), let's see those studies you offered. Go ahead, make an even bigger fool of yourself by showing studies that don't contradict what I said.
[/quote] honestly, I don't know how to respond because it is as if you are talking gibberish to someone who said something totally different than I did...relate this to what I really did say and I will be able to respond.
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
okay, let's pretend your right....summarize for me your revised interpretation of Matthew 22:40, just sum up the argument that I am missing....what does scripture mean when it says that love sums up all the law and prophets if it doesn't mean that the root, the purpose, the conclusion, the reason for all the Law and prophets is love...(biblical love) I have been anxiously waiting for the response and in my excitement I guess I missed it..

You missed it horribly when you suggested your twisted idea of the golden rule as calling everything that is not "love" a sin, in such a way that the same logic would say that it would be a sin to enjoy free time, delicious food, masturbation, or anything like that. By your twisted logic you would forbid free time, yet you don't apply that logic to free time, you apply it to masturbation. When asked about the harms from masturbation the only thing you have to add to what I myself had already said, is that self control is a good thing, as if the only way to exercise self-control was to never touch. You offer only dubious and inconsistent interpretation of scripture that you then don't apply to any other life situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RuthD
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Lack of sleep won't kill you, not without something keeping you awake -- same as holding your breath won't kill you.

you do know don't you that if you fall asleep, you are not going without sleep, right? Without sleep one dies, that is the claim, you argue that I am wrong because if you get sleep, you won't die...that is just a silly argument...you won't die without sleep because you if you sleep you aren't gonna die from lack of sleep....there is not even anything about that argument that is NOT silly. again, the claim was that if you don't breath you will die and you reply, but if you breath you won't die, so your wrong...that is a silly argument.... I never called anyone a moron, never suggested it either, what I said is that your arguments that are suppose to be against what I said, are silly.honestly, I don't know how to respond because it is as if you are talking gibberish to someone who said something totally different than I did...relate this to what I really did say and I will be able to respond.

OK then, where are the studies you claim to have, that someone can by their own will keep themselves awake or hold their breath to the point of death? All you have is strawmen, pretending that I said something I didn't because it suits your fancy. Which seems to be the same thing you are doing with scripture.

As for your studies, I think you'll find that they use something like electric shocks to keep an animal awake -- and not anything to do with staying awake of its own will. If you even bother to search for the studies, that is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RuthD
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You missed it horribly when you suggested your twisted idea of the golden rule as calling everything that is not "love" a sin,
oh, dear, dear, one, you don't have a clue do you? 1. I did not say or suggest that the golden rule says that everything that is not "love" is a sin, in fact, many times now I have shown you the scripture that says that everything that is not love is a sin and asked you to refute it, but instead of offering a rebuttal, you twist what was said into some nonsense about the golden rule saying X....2. the golden rule is an over simplified definition of love. In other words, the golden rule is a brief summary of what real love is, and therefore is how we know that masturbation is a sin. You really do need to try to argue what I am saying rather than try to play these games all the time.
in such a way that the same logic would say that it would be a sin to enjoy free time, delicious food, masturbation, or anything like that.
how so? free time, delicious food, etc. when viewed through the love chapter do not come back as sin, whereas masturbation does...
By your twisted logic you would forbid free time,
what gives you this idea? Show how free time fails the I Cor. 13 test....if you want to make such false claims, then evidence your claim by showing how it fails the love test...remember, it's your claim based on what I actually did say.
yet you don't apply that logic to free time, you apply it to masturbation.
I apply I Cor. 13 to both, one comes back as sin, the other does not.
When asked about the harms from masturbation the only thing you have to add to what I myself had already said, is that self control is a good thing,
actually, I'm still waiting for the evidence to your claims that you made, I asked you repeatedly for medical journal study to evidence your claim...you haven't yet provided it, and so I allowed you to refuse and trumped your refusal to provide such evidence with evidence of the positives for not masturbating...whenever your ready to present the evidence to support your claim I'll be more than happy to refute the argument..until then, it's just empty, baseless opinions.
as if the only way to exercise self-control was to never touch.
actually I have shown you more than once that that is a lie, and still you claim I said it, this is dishonest of you and you really need to reign it in.
You offer only dubious and inconsistent interpretation of scripture that you then don't apply to any other life situation.
I've begged you to refute the scriptures and I you have absolutely not way of knowing what I personally apply to my life and what I don't, so how about you stop pretending to be the judge, and start dealing with evidence and claims being made....?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RuthD
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
OK then, where are the studies you claim to have, that someone can by their own will keep themselves awake or hold their breath to the point of death?
since that was not my claim, why would you even ask me to evidence it...iow's I need only evidence the claims I make and not your made up arguments that reinvent what I have said...
All you have is strawmen, pretending that I said something I didn't because it suits your fancy. Which seems to be the same thing you are doing with scripture.
what I have is a claim that I made that says without air, without food, without sleep man dies. You reinvented that to say that we can stop ourselves from breathing but can't hold out breath long enough to kill ourselves, etc. which is why your argument makes you look silly, because your argument doesn't even resemble a response to what I really did say.
As for your studies, I think you'll find that they use something like electric shocks to keep an animal awake -- and not anything to do with staying awake of its own will. If you even bother to search for the studies, that is.
Again, in light of what I actually did claim and not your reinvention of those claims, I don't have a clue what you are saying...my claim had nothing to do with how those things cease, only that if they do, we die....you really do need to address what I am saying not try to change it to suit your agenda...
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
oh, dear, dear, one, you don't have a clue do you? 1. I did not say or suggest that the golden rule says that everything that is not "love" is a sin, in fact, many times now I have shown you the scripture that says that everything that is not love is a sin and asked you to refute it, but instead of offering a rebuttal, you twist what was said into some nonsense about the golden rule saying X....2. the golden rule is an over simplified definition of love. In other words, the golden rule is a brief summary of what real love is, and therefore is how we know that masturbation is a sin. You really do need to try to argue what I am saying rather than try to play these games all the time.


how so? free time, delicious food, etc. when viewed through the love chapter do not come back as sin, whereas masturbation does...


what gives you this idea? Show how free time fails the I Cor. 13 test....if you want to make such false claims, then evidence your claim by showing how it fails the love test...remember, it's your claim based on what I actually did say.


I apply I Cor. 13 to both, one comes back as sin, the other does not.


actually I have shown you more than once that that is a lie, and still you claim I said it, this is dishonest of you and you really need to reign it in.


I've begged you to refute the scriptures and I you have absolutely not way of knowing what I personally apply to my life and what I don't, so how about you stop pretending to be the judge, and start dealing with evidence and claims being made....?

Show me how masturbation fails that love test of yours, but enjoying free time, sleeping, or eating delicious food (instead of cheaper food), don't fail the test for the same reason.

actually, I'm still waiting for the evidence to your claims that you made, I asked you repeatedly for medical journal study to evidence your claim...you haven't yet provided it, and so I allowed you to refuse and trumped your refusal to provide such evidence with evidence of the positives for not masturbating...whenever your ready to present the evidence to support your claim I'll be more than happy to refute the argument..until then, it's just empty, baseless opinions.

That would be back in post #97.
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
since that was not my claim, why would you even ask me to evidence it...iow's I need only evidence the claims I make and not your made up arguments that reinvent what I have said...

Yes, it is your claim even though you try to put the words in my mouth.

what I have is a claim that I made that says without air, without food, without sleep man dies. You reinvented that to say that we can stop ourselves from breathing but can't hold out breath long enough to kill ourselves, etc. which is why your argument makes you look silly, because your argument doesn't even resemble a response to what I really did say.

And that claim I do not dispute, other than that it is entirely irrelevant to what I said. You said earlier that you can't kill yourself from not masturbating as though that set it apart from fasting or sleep deprivation, and I responded that likewise you can't kill yourself with voluntary sleep deprivation or holding your breath.

Incidentally, just like with sleep deprivation and holding your breath, without sexual release you eventually fall unconscious and your unconscious does it for you.
Nocturnal emission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BTW, since the dreams that go with this usually involve images of women who you probably aren't married to (or homosexual encounters too says wiki), and you can't control that, wouldn't masturbating without imagery be better from the standpoint of lust?
 
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,287
940
35
Ohio
✟99,593.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
So....it doesn't matter what the Scriptures teach, we just don't want to make young men (or women) feel bad? That's a lame argument...

The exposition of any kind of sin will make people feel bad. That is the purpose of the Law in preaching - not to coddle people, but to expose their sin and drive them to repentance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: razzelflabben
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Show me how masturbation fails that love test of yours,
not my love test, scriptures....I Cor. 13....
but enjoying free time, sleeping, or eating delicious food (instead of cheaper food), don't fail the test for the same reason.
so cheap food can't be delicious? Wow, I need to introduce you to some good southern cooks...ah well, back to the discussion. First let me clarify something I have already said, but you set this up to deny it was said, so we're just making sure you don't misrepresent things again.....The difference between sleeping, eating, and breathing is that without them life ceases, we die. In other words, as is consistent with the word of God, sleeping, eating, etc. cannot be sinful because they sustain life, however the excess of these things is sin and is specifically stated in scripture as well as failing the love test in I Cor. 13. IOW's there are two measures here, one is the specified (which we don't have for masturbation and many other things in our lives) and the general (which we should be measuring everything by) when we do this both come back that only excess of sleeping and eating are sin, we don't see the same thing for masturbation, therefore trying to compare them is like apples to oranges, not apples to apples.

Free time is also an apples to oranges comparison in that it is 1. specified in scripture as something necessary for man (Sabbath) and 2. general as in passing the I Cor. 13 test. IOW's it has the same problem that sleeping and eating do, it is both specified in scripture and passes the general love test. In fact, scripture commands us to take some free time and rest, it's a command. Even hits the top 10 of the ten commandments....

That would be back in post #97.
and you were told by a medical student that that was not a medical journal and you were also asked to provide some form of web search so that those of us without access to the paper you referred to could review the material, and you refused both...iow's you still have not evidenced your claim.....
 
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,287
940
35
Ohio
✟99,593.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
How about the study referenced in the article I gave you?
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Frequency and Subsequent Risk of Prostate Cancer
Journal of the American Medical Association (vol 291, p 1578)
Wow...this is what you get when you don't read the actual data.

Here's just the abstract:

CONTEXT: Sexual activity has been hypothesized to play a role in the development of prostate cancer, but epidemiological data are virtually limited to case-control studies, which may be prone to bias because recall among individuals with prostate cancer could be distorted as a consequence of prostate malignancy or ongoing therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency, which includes sexual intercourse, nocturnal emission, and masturbation and risk of prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective study using follow-up data from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (February 1, 1992, through January 31, 2000) of 29 342 US men aged 46 to 81 years, who provided information on history of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency on a self-administered questionnaire in 1992 and responded to follow-up questionnaires every 2 years to 2000. [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency was assessed by asking participants to report the average number of ejaculations they had per month during the ages of 20 to 29 years, 40 to 49 years, and during the past year (1991).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence of total prostate cancer.

RESULTS: During 222 426 person-years of follow-up, there were 1449 new cases of total prostate cancer, 953 organ-confined cases, and 147 advanced cases of prostate cancer. Most categories of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency were unrelated to risk of prostate cancer. However, high [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency was related to decreased risk of total prostate cancer. The multivariate relative risks for men reporting 21 or more ejaculations per month compared with men reporting 4 to 7 ejaculations per month at ages 20 to 29 years were 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.10); ages 40 to 49 years, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.86); previous year, 0.49 (95% CI, 0.27-0.88); and averaged across a lifetime, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.89). Similar associations were observed for organ-confined prostate cancer. [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency was not statistically significantly associated with risk of advanced prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer.


In case you don't know how to read the statistics, here's what the study showed (besides the obvious flaw of it being a prospective cohort based on questionnaires). People who [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] 21 or more times a month (not masturbation specified, just [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] - that leaves a lot of room for speculation. For example, what if you broke it down and found that sex had an advantage while MB didn't? There's a lot of room for further study) had a VERY slightly decreased lifetime risk of developing localized prostate cancer.

On the converse, however, those who [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] less frequently did NOT have an INCREASED risk of cancer. So there is no harm to NOT [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Wow...this is what you get when you don't read the actual data.

I read enough of it. Their study seems to disprove the previous dogma, and they specifically say it does ([bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency does not relate to higher cancer as previously thought). In fact they seemed to find the opposite; but I suppose they wanted to be careful about saying that.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Frequency and Subsequent Risk of Prostate Cancer, April 7, 2004, Leitzmann et al. 291 (13): 1578 — JAMA
Our finding of no association or a possibly inverse association between high [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency and prostate cancer is difficult to reconcile with the commonly proposed concept that androgenic stimulation is related both to enhanced libido and to increased risk of prostate cancer.

In summary, our results among predominantly white men suggest that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer. High [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency may possibly be associated with a lower risk of total and organ-confined prostate cancer. It is unlikely that reverse causation, differences in prostate cancer screening behavior, or confounding are entirely responsible for the observed results.

However, look at their data (Table 5):
T5.large.jpg
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, it is your claim even though you try to put the words in my mouth.
dear one, I have had enough of this nonsense, my claim was that without food, sleep and air one would die, I made no claim as to how, when, where, how long, etc. one would be deprived, only that all three were necessary to survival...anything else you may have thought, is in your imagination.
And that claim I do not dispute, other than that it is entirely irrelevant to what I said.
and yet, your argument was that we can compare food and sleep to masturbation, I responded that we couldn't because sleep and food were necessary for survival, to which you made some lame comment about if you try to hold your breath, you will pass out and breath...which as you can see from our summary of the entire discussion is irrelevant to the discussion and yet you somehow want me to evidence a claim I did not make....that makes totally no sense and leaves your argument silly as I stated previously and I will consider any further attempt to paint me as saying something differently as flaming and report you though that goes against every grain of my being....iow's if you continue to try to change my words into something you want me to say, I will consider it flaming. If on the other hand, you deal with what was actually said, we can have a great discussion and maybe learn something from each other.
You said earlier that you can't kill yourself from not masturbating as though that set it apart from fasting or sleep deprivation, and I responded that likewise you can't kill yourself with voluntary sleep deprivation or holding your breath.
well, that isn't totally true either, it may be how you wanted the discussion to go, but it is far from how it actually went, in fact, your first statement here is a falsehood to start out with, for I did NOT say that you can't kill yourself from not masturbating, what I said is that there is no medical evidence that suggests that not masturbating is dangerous to one's health....

I mean, really, how can you expect to have a fair debate if you can't even get the first part of the discussion right, and it goes downhill from there. After I said that there appears to be NO medical evidence suggesting that not masturbation will do physical harm, you tried to equate not masturbating to eating and sleeping. To that, I argued that that was comparing apples to oranges in that eating and sleeping were necessary for survival whereas, masturbation was not in that same category. Notice nothing in that claim suggests self infliction because the only claim is that you can't compare apples and oranges. To which you replied your silly argument that you would fall asleep or start breathing before you killed yourself from lack thereof (btw, I noticed that you didn't claim you couldn't starve yourself to death, which was part of that original claim, that without food you would die, but hey, when all you do is pick and choose, leaving that one out is just more of your usual)...anyway, back to topic. I then told you that you weren't staying consistent with the arguments being made, and instead you are reinventing them, to which you "demanded" I provide evidence that one could hold their breath long enough to die....now come on, there isn't a single post on this thread where I said or even suggested such a thing and if you really believe that is what I said, I challenge you to show the post, cause I assure you it does not exist, and this type of argument seems to be flamatory, though I am willing to look the other way by assuming you just didn't read what was really written because of your emotional charged view of the topic. So once called on this response, you then try the old argument, that I wasn't responding to what you said, so let me refer you to post #114 to see where it all started.
Incidentally, just like with sleep deprivation and holding your breath, without sexual release you eventually fall unconscious and your unconscious does it for you.
Nocturnal emission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
nocturnal emission is not the same thing as masturbation and we are still waiting for you to evidence with medical research that lack of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] causes harm....without the evidence and without your understanding the difference between masturbation and nocturnal emission, we are done with the discussion, for without those two things, you simply have no argument at all. Well, no argument with anything relevant to offer the discussion.
BTW, since the dreams that go with this usually involve images of women who you probably aren't married to (or homosexual encounters too says wiki), and you can't control that, wouldn't masturbating without imagery be better from the standpoint of lust?
Ask someone who holds those views.....
 
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,287
940
35
Ohio
✟99,593.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I read enough of it. Their study seems to disprove the previous dogma, and they specifically say it does ([bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] frequency does not relate to higher cancer as previously thought). In fact they seemed to find the opposite; but I suppose they wanted to be careful about saying that.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Frequency and Subsequent Risk of Prostate Cancer, April 7, 2004, Leitzmann et al. 291 (13): 1578 — JAMA
But YOUR argument was that masturbation decreases the risk of prostate cancer, and that conversely, NOT masturbating is bad for your health. The study proves neither.
 
Upvote 0

highlife

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2011
811
18
✟1,072.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So....it doesn't matter what the Scriptures teach, we just don't want to make young men (or women) feel bad? That's a lame argument...

The exposition of any kind of sin will make people feel bad. That is the purpose of the Law in preaching - not to coddle people, but to expose their sin and drive them to repentance.

Anything that is hotly debated and not explicit in scripture should not be forced down a new Christians throat. There is no where in the bible where it says MB is a sin in those exact words or very similar words so therefore you have to go through convoluted interpretation which is not agreed upon even by most Christians in order to demonize it. That is not a good starting place for new or even intermediate level christians, espcially when there are so many other sins and general teachings which are explicitly called out.

The teacher who starts off right out of the gate with a new christian into some hotly debated topic that is not explicit in scripture should be ejected from that role. There are control issues there, or even evil going on there.

When I was baptized we started off with things like the fruit of the spirit, salvation, etc. Not debates on lexicons of convoluted topics on which not every one agrees. In fact the bible even talks about such issues that are not explicitly addressed as being up to the individual believer, however it seems its not enough for razz to believe that MB is sin she has to impose her will and opinion on others and that is clearly against the scripture, the only thing scripture says is not to do those things in the presence of the other believer if it causes them to stumble, nothing more.

It is a shame that the church gets divided because those with controlling manipulative personalities just cant let it go. I dont have a problem with someone thinking MB is a sin for them, I do have a problem with someone forcing it down someone else's throat and passive aggressively condemning that person if they don't agree.
 
Upvote 0

highlife

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2011
811
18
✟1,072.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But YOUR argument was that masturbation decreases the risk of prostate cancer, and that conversely, NOT masturbating is bad for your health. The study proves neither.

Regardless of the prostate cancer debate, frequent [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] has been proven to increase general wellness and mental health, young adults who are having regular sex tend to have higher GPA's and an over all better quality of life (all other circumstances being equal). Thats enough for me (so long as everything is done in a responsible manner), I dont need a PhD thesis on prostate cancer, there are numerous other mental health benifits to responsible sex and MB.
 
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,287
940
35
Ohio
✟99,593.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Anything that is hotly debated and not explicit in scripture should not be forced down a new Christians throat. There is no where in the bible where it says MB is a sin in those exact words or very similar words so therefore you have to go through convoluted interpretation which is not agreed upon even by most Christians in order to demonize it. That is not a good starting place for new or even intermediate level christians, espcially when there are so many other sins and general teachings which are explicitly called out.

The teacher who starts off right out of the gate with a new christian into some hotly debated topic that is not explicit in scripture should be ejected from that role. There are control issues there, or even evil going on there.

When I was baptized we started off with things like the fruit of the spirit, salvation, etc. Not debates on lexicons of convoluted topics on which not every one agrees. In fact the bible even talks about such issues that are not explicitly addressed as being up to the individual believer, however it seems its not enough for razz to believe that MB is sin she has to impose her will and opinion on others and that is clearly against the scripture, the only thing scripture says is not to do those things in the presence of the other believer if it causes them to stumble, nothing more.

It is a shame that the church gets divided because those with controlling manipulative personalities just cant let it go. I dont have a problem with someone thinking MB is a sin for them, I do have a problem with someone forcing it down someone else's throat and passive aggressively condemning that person if they don't agree.
Who said anything about "forcing it down the throats of new Christians?"

You're really moving the goal posts now. Nobody should be forcing anything down anyone's throat, but neither should the truth be withheld in order to coddle someone. Of course one should take it easy with new Christians, but I really don't think that anyone has been advocating otherwise.

You're reading your judgments into other peoples actions.
 
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,287
940
35
Ohio
✟99,593.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Regardless of the prostate cancer debate, frequent [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] has been proven to increase general wellness and mental health, young adults who are having regular sex tend to have higher GPA's and an over all better quality of life (all other circumstances being equal). Thats enough for me (so long as everything is done in a responsible manner), I dont need a PhD thesis on prostate cancer, there are numerous other mental health benifits to responsible sex and MB.
The mental health benefits have been shown from regular SEX. I haven't seen any studies on similar benefits from masturbation.
 
Upvote 0

highlife

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2011
811
18
✟1,072.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Who said anything about "forcing it down the throats of new Christians?"

You're really moving the goal posts now. Nobody should be forcing anything down anyone's throat, but neither should the truth be withheld in order to coddle someone. Of course one should take it easy with new Christians, but I really don't think that anyone has been advocating otherwise.

You're reading your judgments into other peoples actions.

There can not be any watering down if its not even there. Thats my whole point.
 
Upvote 0