Is masturbating a sin?

[ZephBonkerer]

Situation ethics is nonsense due to the subjectivity it stems from. Sexually immorality is a sin. We are not to feed the lusts of the flesh anytime, anywhere. What the world sees as highly inappropriate, criminal or legal not does not always equal to that to which God deems.

You're mistaken for a number of reasons.

Situation ethics does not necessarily imply that moral standards are subjective - only that facts and circumstances matter, as well as the context. Consider Matthew 18:29-30. Would the actions of the unmerciful servant have been an egregious sin if the person who owed him 100 denarii was an abusive and habitual deadbeat? I think not.

There might also be some confusion as to what constitutes "lusts of the flesh". The kinds of things identified in Galatians 5:19-21 would not lead me to believe having a sex drive would fit into that category. Is the desire to eat or sleep a "lust of the flesh"? It is engaging our sexuality in an immoral manner that is condemned by God, not sexuality per se.

As a side note: I really wish other Christians would stop making a fetish out of chastity. There is nothing special or particularly holy about celibacy. It is a lifestyle choice, nothing more.

The World and the Lord differ in many ways regarding what is and isn't moral. Exposing oneself in public is not one of them. That is considered immoral by both God and society in general.

Context matters. The setting matters. Facts and circumstances matter. These things collectively form what I would call the "situation". Something that would be perfectly fine (not sin) at a burlesque show might not be appropriate (sin) at a Super Bowl halftime show. That doesn't mean all is relative, only that ethics are often situational by their very nature.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

I don't think masturbation, per se, is a spiritual problem. In fact, I doubt many men, especially when they are younger, can avoid it (I can't speak to the experience of women).. The spiritual issue is the objectification of others and a diminution of sex to a selfish pleasure. I think sex is a beautiful act between people who love each other. To reduce it in practice to a personal pleasure is not good. That being said, the sexual impulse can be distracting. I think it can help to release the pressure, so to speak, so that one can get on with things that matter. One of the advantages of getting older is that the insane drive that is so distracting to younger men settles down.

inappropriate content is just horrible, I think. It's unrealistic and takes the problems mentioned above to another level. Although I don't think masturbation is unavoidable for most men, inappropriate content is.

I guess I can't say inappropriate content, but y'all get the point.

I think you nailed it here. Some people seem to think any and all sexual attraction is "lust", but I don't see it that way. It is possible to find a woman attractive while still refraining from actions that would objectify her. I come into contact with beautiful women all the time by nature of my lifestyle. If I fancy a woman in any way, the last thing I would want to do is anything that would dishonor her in any way - by objectifying her, diminishing her agency, etc. I simply refuse to treat women that way.

I cannot for the life of me condemn anyone for taking matters into one's hands. Especially for someone who has no other outlet. Not everyone is fit for celibacy. I get annoyed when I hear people with zero sex drive judge and condemn others whose sex drive is well above zero.

As for "inappropriate content", that can be anything from a Victoria's Secret catalogue to content that would be truly degrading to those it features - depending on who you talk to. Years ago I came across some such content where they spoke of their own performers in disparaging and even racist terms. Of course I was appalled - I didn't think their performers deserved such treatment. I was all "if this is the level of contempt they have for their own stars, then imagine how they perceive their audience!"

Granted, this sounds a bit much like "I know it when I see it", but that's perfectly fine. A Supreme Court Justice should not say such things in a ruling, but here in our own daily lives I see no problem with that standard.

 

[dan.pine]

Forgive me for disagreeing but St. Matthew 18:29-30 has to do with Gods mercy being so rich and wonderful towards the forgiveness of our sins. As Jesus taught we have to reciprocate that same mercy towards those who have sinned against us. Jesus merely uses a hypothetical situation based on realities so His listeners would understand the message. Spiritually speaking we are all dead beats and abusive in our sinful ways and don’t deserve the life death and resurrection of our Lord. In fact your pointing out the what if this guy is a dead beat only strengthens the Lords intent there.
As far as making chastity out as greater than having a marital relationship with a spouse, St. Paul said in one of his letters that chastity was better than to be married if one could handle it. Because you would be solely dedicated to the Lord and not concerned about the wellbeing of a spouse. Being solely dedicated to the Lord in all of your heart soul mind and strength is more holy than being partial dedicated in your strengths due to having to care for a spouse and kids etc. Not that the married life isn’t a blessed path because it is but it’s a path that leads to fewer Holy men and Holy women than monasticism.
Can eating and sleeping be sinful? Absolutely! There’s proverbs that address these. If you eat in excess then you’re hurting yourself. if you sleep to access you become very lazy which is spoken against tons throughout scripture. Sleeping the right amount is holy and blessed. Sleeping too much is fulfilling a self satisfaction not a necessity. Same thing with food.
Oral and anal sex, at least in the EO tradition is sinful even within the marriage because it’s the wrong use of those bodily functions and components. Any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful without any exceptions that I know of. The same exact act done between two loving people outside of wedlock is sinful, even though it’s the same exact act. The reason for that is there’s spiritual components and mysteries involved above and beyond the sexual act. How much more is this the case when the sexual act is done with one’s self because of a lack of self control? In no way is touching yourself an act of love for God or another. It’s solely an act of selfishness to satisfy a physical desire that a person refuses to control. touching yourself isn’t done for the stewardship of Gods creation, for the better of the church or society. It only benefits the person doing it. That an act of selfishness this is an act not blessed by God. If Jesus were standing directly in front of you would you feel comfortable masterbating? As a married man I would feel comfortable with Him being in the room with me If my wife and I engaged in proper sexual relations. Because the fact is God is everywhere present and fills all things.

 

[HIM]

You're mistaken for a number of reasons.

Situation ethics does not necessarily imply that moral standards are subjective - only that facts and circumstances matter, as well as the context. Consider Matthew 18:29-30. Would the actions of the unmerciful servant have been an egregious sin if the person who owed him 100 denarii was an abusive and habitual deadbeat? I think not.

There might also be some confusion as to what constitutes "lusts of the flesh". The kinds of things identified in Galatians 5:19-21 would not lead me to believe having a sex drive would fit into that category. Is the desire to eat or sleep a "lust of the flesh"? It is engaging our sexuality in an immoral manner that is condemned by God, not sexuality per se.

As a side note: I really wish other Christians would stop making a fetish out of chastity. There is nothing special or particularly holy about celibacy. It is a lifestyle choice, nothing more.

The World and the Lord differ in many ways regarding what is and isn't moral. Exposing oneself in public is not one of them. That is considered immoral by both God and society in general.

Context matters. The setting matters. Facts and circumstances matter. These things collectively form what I would call the "situation". Something that would be perfectly fine (not sin) at a burlesque show might not be appropriate (sin) at a Super Bowl halftime show. That doesn't mean all is relative, only that ethics are often situational by their very nature.

You are mistaken. Modesty was not an issue until after the fall. And Having a sex drive is not issue. What we do with it is. And yes eating and sleeping can also fit in as ill behavior. Over indulging or inappropriately fulfilling is and will always be an issue. And when you use words like "does not necessarily imply" in your explanation it should have been a red flag for you to stop. Situation ethics is subjective to one's opinion about their situation and action. What might be an issue for some will not be for another. Hence the word situation.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Forgive me for disagreeing but St. Matthew 18:29-30 has to do with Gods mercy being so rich and wonderful towards the forgiveness of our sins. As Jesus taught we have to reciprocate that same mercy towards those who have sinned against us. Jesus merely uses a hypothetical situation based on realities so His listeners would understand the message. Spiritually speaking we are all dead beats and abusive in our sinful ways and don’t deserve the life death and resurrection of our Lord. In fact your pointing out the what if this guy is a dead beat only strengthens the Lords intent there.

You're forgiven. Not that it's a sin to disagree with me! Here's where I'm going to point out a few things.

We are not always supposed to show mercy. Deuteronomy 13:8 and 1 Samuel 15:9 are examples where showing mercy was clearly sinful and inappropriate. If we take the view that Matthew 18 teaches that we must never take action against a defaulted debtor, then nobody in their right mind would ever lend money to anyone. What bank would finance the purchase of real estate if they had no lawful recourse in the event of default?

The setting and context of Matthew 18:29-30 is that the debtor who owed 100 denarii was not a deadbeat and was very willing to make things right to the extent his own finances allow. He wasn't a swindler, a deadbeat, or any of those things. Verse 31 of that chapter says the other servants were distressed at what they saw. It is reasonable to hold they likely would not have been if the debtor in this case was a con artist.

In other words, if taking recourse against a defaulted debtor was sin per se, then we might as well outlaw bank foreclosures. I think we all can agree that it doesn't take a PhD in Economics to understand why that would not be workable.

As far as making chastity out as greater than having a marital relationship with a spouse, St. Paul said in one of his letters that chastity was better than to be married if one could handle it. Because you would be solely dedicated to the Lord and not concerned about the wellbeing of a spouse. Being solely dedicated to the Lord in all of your heart soul mind and strength is more holy than being partial dedicated in your strengths due to having to care for a spouse and kids etc. Not that the married life isn’t a blessed path because it is but it’s a path that leads to fewer Holy men and Holy women than monasticism.

There are advantages to celibacy - that I do not deny. The problem I have is when it is forced upon the unwilling. An example: When my own marriage was in jeopardy, I entered counseling with intent to determine what can be done to make divorce unnecessary. I informed the Church leadership that in the event divorce proves unavoidable, I will proceed in that direction and eventually I will remarry. I made it very clear to them that I don't do celibacy and that I refuse to be forced into it. (I wrote about that in another thread.)

In no way is touching yourself an act of love for God or another. It’s solely an act of selfishness to satisfy a physical desire that a person refuses to control. touching yourself isn’t done for the stewardship of Gods creation, for the better of the church or society. It only benefits the person doing it. That an act of selfishness this is an act not blessed by God.

Just because an action benefits only oneself does not make it sin.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

And when you used the words like "does not necessarily imply" in your explanation should have been a red flag for you to stop...

What's wrong with using this phrase? I'm only employing simple logic here.

If your intent is to debate semantics, you're wasting your time. I use the phrase "situation ethics" not as a cover for what is essentially moral relativism, but only as a statement concerning the nature of ethics. I don't deny that there is an absolute standard.

Based on the context of my words, you should know that nothing in my words can be reasonably read as a defense of gluttony, sloth, or immorality.

 

[HIM]

What's wrong with using this phrase? I'm only employing simple logic here.

If your intent is to debate semantics, you're wasting your time. I use the phrase "situation ethics" not as a cover for what is essentially moral relativism, but only as a statement concerning the nature of ethics.

Logic? Whose?
And Please don't think we are debating. It is far from that.

I don't deny that there is an absolute standard.

Yet here you are defending self gratification.

Based on the context of my words, you should know that nothing in my words can be reasonably read as a defense of gluttony, sloth, or immorality.

Yet here you are defending self gratification.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Logic? Whose?

What do you mean whose logic? That question itself is illogical as nobody owns logic. If I say 2 + 3 = 5, would anyone ask "according to whose mathematics?"

There is nothing inappropriate about saying things like "A does not necessarily imply B". I don't understand what makes you think otherwise. We use simple logic when reading technical literature or solving mysteries. Is there any reason to believe employing simple logic is somehow inappropriate when considering ethical matters or the Word of God? The Lord commissioned His Word to be read and understood by humans, not Klingons or Romulans.

Simple logic is very useful in detecting and weeding out bad doctrine. You should try it sometime. Anybody can take a few verses out of context to make all kinds of wild claims about what God's Word says. I've seen it done many times.

And Please don't think we are debating. It is far from that.

If you're not debating, then what are you doing? If you were debating, then you're doing an awful job of it.

You seem to think my understanding of the situational nature of ethics means I am championing moral relativism. I am doing no such thing, yet you persist in folly by claiming that I am. I don't deny that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong. Nothing in my words should have led you to believe otherwise. You should know better by now.

Just because facts, circumstances, etc are relevant in weighing the ethics of an action does not necessarily imply that ethical standards are relative. (There - I said it again!) I'm saying this because your reasoning concerning the nature of ethics seems to be as follows:

Premise 1: If situational factors concerning ethics are relevant, then ethical standards are relative.
Premise 2: Ethical standards are absolute.

Conclusion: Therefore, situational factors are irrelevant concerning ethics.

It is Premise 1 and the resulting conclusion that I reject, not Premise 2.

Yet here you are defending self gratification.

So what? An action is not sin simply because it only benefits oneself.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Has this been cited yet? I think it is reasonable.
CCC 2352 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."

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Has this been cited yet? I think it is reasonable.
CCC 2352 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."

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

"CCC 2352... the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition... an intrinsically and gravely disordered action... To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility..."

With all due respect, who writes this stuff!? While it is intended to sound all serious and official, I took it as something that could have come from a South Park episode. There are myriad problems when you outsource your ethical reasoning to Church bureaucrats.

And what is "CCC 2352" a reference to? A code section? A file number? Maybe CCC means Christian Conduct Code. Or Council of Church Counselors. Or Congress of Crispy Chicken. I have the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, I think I can get along just fine without having my lawyers scour the CCC.

Edit: I found out that CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church. While I figured this text came from some religious authority, I didn't know it was specific to the Catholic Church. I wasn't trying to throw shade on Catholics or anything. But please understand that I am not Catholic and many of us on this thread are not accustomed to deferring to any centralized authority on moral or spiritual matters.

 

[bèlla]

Masturbation is a sexual act. The bible articulates God's parameters on physical intimacy and its transgression. There is no instance where engagement is lauded or recommended outside of marital bonds. Semantics is man's attempt to circumvent the truth. It's better to acknowledge the struggle than embrace deception.

~bella

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"CCC 2352... the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition... an intrinsically and gravely disordered action... To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility..."

With all due respect, who writes this stuff!? While it is intended to sound all serious and official, I took it as something that could have come from a South Park episode. There are myriad problems when you outsource your ethical reasoning to Church bureaucrats.

And what is "CCC 2352" a reference to? A code section? A file number? Maybe CCC means Christian Conduct Code. Or Council of Church Counselors. Or Congress of Crispy Chicken. I have the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, I think I can get along just fine without having my lawyers scour the CCC.

Edit: I found out that CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church. While I figured this text came from some religious authority, I didn't know it was specific to the Catholic Church. I wasn't trying to throw shade on Catholics or anything. But please understand that I am not Catholic and many of us on this thread are not accustomed to deferring to any centralized authority on moral or spiritual matters.

No problem. I should have given full citation and link. But I was thinking he source was not important as most here are no Catholic and don't care what the church teaches. But this idea that while the act may be wrong the culpability maybe diminished. I think that aligns with reality. Is it as bad a sign for a an abused 12 year old as it is for a married adult? Perhaps but it is for God to make that judgement, not us.

 

[DamianWarS]

Do it in church then

an act being inappropriate in church, or in a public setting, doesn't make it sinful.

Leviticus 15:16-18 ESV​

​

“If a man has an emission of sperm, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until the evening. And every garment and every skin on which the sperm comes shall be washed with water and be unclean until the evening. If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of sperm, both of them shall bathe themselves in water and be unclean until the evening.

This verse shows us masturbation is as clean/unclean as sex is but it does not help us establish if masturbation itself is sinful. the law seems to be more driven at controlling these things so they are more valued during the evening hours and in privacy than daylight hours, perhaps even a direct contrast to neighboring pagan practices as well.

 

[HIM]

an act being inappropriate in church, or in a public setting, doesn't make it sinful.

We are the church, the Temple of God the Body of Christ.

This verse shows us masturbation is as clean/unclean as sex is but it does not help us establish if masturbation itself is sinful. the law seems to be more driven at controlling these things so they are more valued during the evening hours and in privacy than daylight hours, perhaps even a direct contrast to neighboring pagan practices as well.

The purpose of sex was for male and female to become one flesh and through this procreation. This is and was to be a sacred union. In so much was used as a symbol representing Christ and the church in Ephesians. Lust and Self-gratification is not what was intended and is a result of the fall in Eden.

 

[DamianWarS]

We are the church, the Temple of God the Body of Christ.

The purpose of sex was for male and female to become one flesh and through this procreation. This is and was to be a sacred union. In so much was used as a symbol representing Christ and the church in Ephesians. Lust and Self-gratification is not what was intended and is a result of the fall in Eden.

I'm not defending masturbation, I'm defending critical engagement. There are lots of things I wouldn't do in church but that is not a measure of what is sinful or not, for example, I wouldn't take a bath in church but that doesn't mean taking a bath is wrong. I get where you're coming from because typically what you can do in church should be considered universally "good" and things you can practice outside of church. the reverse would be things you "can't do" outside of church (morally speaking) are probably universally "wrong" too and you can't do it inside (in more traditional moralism). but that doesn't make inappropriate things in church sinful or appropriate things outside of church not sinful.

Saying "we are the church" is a different statement altogether than your OG post saying "Do it in church then". the context of our bodies as a temple (1 Cor 6) is regarding sexual immorality but I think the OP already knows sexual immorality is wrong, what she wants to know is if masturbation is regarded as sexual immorality. Simply stating our bodies are a temple of God doesn't really help the OP in this case. The OP seems to be asking a sincere question, and I would be fearful that just stating platitudes may feel more defeating to the OP than encouraging and I would rather focus on words to edify with things we can support.

People are surprisingly responsive when you're honest and admit that the bible doesn't say a whole lot on the certain subject matter, and what it may say cab be ambiguous, and then transparently state what you're personal conviction is. In terms of "law" it puts you in a temporary unclean state, no different than sex. As a young single Hebrew male, this could just mean masturbating at night to avoid breaking the law or else facing the awkwardness of admitting you're unclean for the whole day (plus where you masturbated), for the young female... well it doesn't really address them does it but I think broadly they would be navigated by the same social stigma and probably even more so. the law is about the person 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] as well as what came in contact with the [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], meaning clothes, bed, maybe room... all would be equally unclean until evening, with your wife, it would be consensual so she would be equally responsible. This forces a greater social responsibility on men or married couples to be more aware of being appropriate as their actions have consequences regarding themselves as well as the things around them. A young married couple would probably have lots of sex but a law like this helps create boundaries otherwise you might as well be a leper if you're unclean all the time which may have been socially acceptable in the first month of marriage hence the Western term "honeymoon" or the "sweet moon", where the moon phase of marriage is the sweetest. So the law doesn't forbid [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] it just gives it boundaries and frames it around the best times to do it.

This could be used to support masturbation or responsible management of sexual urges, even with a temple of God context, which is why it's better to be honest about what scripture says than forcing the text to say something it really is not clear about. This will give you more credibility (because people like transparency) and allow you to share your personal conviction with them. The "your body is a temple" context (1 Cor 6) is followed by Paul's remarks regarding the married and unmarried in 1 Cor 7 (arguably the same context) Paul says in v12 "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)" he's being intentionally transparent here and admits when something is not clear instruction yet still needed to discuss. We can do the same admitting when something is unclear but also sharing our personal thoughts and experiences on the subject in a way that can edify. I would assume the OP is younger and perhaps unmarried, (which is why they are asking the question) most people on this forum are boomers or gen-Xers. old millennials are in their 40s now so Gen Zs are probably the ones asking these questions the most and are a rare breed in this form. I can assure you they will respond better in transparency over platitudes so we have a responsibility in engaging this group in a way that will reach them rather than push them away, as Paul says "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

 

[HIM]

I'm not defending masturbation, I'm defending critical engagement. There are lots of things I wouldn't do in church but that is not a measure of what is sinful or not, for example, I wouldn't take a bath in church but that doesn't mean taking a bath is wrong. I get where you're coming from because typically what you can do in church should be considered universally "good" and things you can practice outside of church. the reverse would be things you "can't do" outside of church (morally speaking) are probably universally "wrong" too and you can't do it inside (in more traditional moralism). but that doesn't make inappropriate things in church sinful or appropriate things outside of church not sinful.

Saying "we are the church" is a different statement altogether than your OG post saying "Do it in church then". the context of our bodies as a temple (1 Cor 6) is regarding sexual immorality but I think the OP already knows sexual immorality is wrong, what he wants to know is if masturbation is regarded as sexual immorality. Simply stating our bodies are a temple of God doesn't really help the OP in this case.

For an actual Christian who is God’s Temple the body of Christ it does.

 

[DamianWarS]

For an actual Christian it does who is God’s Temple the body of Christ.

yes, and no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge too.

 

[friend of]

In so much was used as a symbol representing Christ and the church in Ephesians. Lust and Self-gratification is not what was intended and is a result of the fall in Eden

Do you not think Adam and Eve experienced lust or strong sexual desire for one another in the garden before the fall?

 

[HIM]

Do you not think Adam and Eve experienced lust or strong sexual desire for one another in the garden before the fall?

all we know is they were made in God’s image and likeness.

 

[friend of]

all we know is they were made in God’s image and likeness.

Do you think, as man and woman, that they ever had sexual intercourse before the fall?