Is touching yourself a sin? (2)

[holo]

"I have never believed, or said, that it is."

You certainly do believe that. You have said repeatedly that you can do whatever you want because you are saved.

That's not a "license to sin" though. It would be, if I were a legalist, and if my will was to actually sin.

Do you even know what the word conscience means?

Yes, the word means "with knowledge". However, it's not actual knowledge that makes muslims feel guilty about not praying five times a day - it's presumtion, it's a false idea. It's not the actual truth.

""Thou shalt not touch.""

I have never typed that sentence.

No, but isn't that what you mean though?

"I have yet to find them there, though."

Oh they're in there, but I believe, that when you see them, you just skip ahead because you believe that since you are in Christ, you don't need those rules.

I can't think of any rules I should need, no. And no, the bible never mentions masturbation. You figure it's fornication and therefore you see it like you see fornication. I don't agree that it is, though.

"And when was the rule against masturbation added?"

In the Catholic church?

No, in any church? It certainly wasn't there to begin with.

Paul wrote extensively about sins of the flesh.

Sure. I'm not in/of the flesh though.

"It's more than that. It's the power of sin."

Wrong again. The power of sin is death

Romans 7:8
But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.

1 Corinthians 15:56
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

"Yes, pretty much. Without the commandment, sin loses its power."

Wrong. Unless you have knowledge of sin, and a law that defines what is sinful and what is not, you can never know if you are behaving in a way that is pleasing to God.

How did/could Adam and Eve know they were behaving in a way pleasing to the Lord?

"Sin began reigning in the world because Adam and Eve were tempted by the ability to live based on the knowledge of right and wrong."

Wrong. Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. When they did the exact opposite of what He commanded them to not do. The law that was in effect in the garden was, 'do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'. They ate of that tree, doing the opposite of what God had commanded that they not do, they broke the law. That is the sin. Not the law itself.

God said to NOT learn right from wrong. The only law in Eden was NOT to learn about the law.

I'm not going to make the same mistake as they did.

If you felt guilty or convicted about masturbation you would have no problem with Dyin2live giving it up for the reasons he has stated.

Actually, I would, because I think people are too ruled by their fragile fleeting religious consciences and I think most people listen more to their own conscience than to their actual convictions and to the Spirit.

Nice try, but these verses are not addressing issues of the moral law, but issues regarding the keeping of the ceremonial law.

The bible itself NEVER addresses the "moral law" or the "ceremonial law" - that's just a man-made distinction and a way of looking at it, much like we have divided the books of the bible into chapters and verses.

What you have to keep in mind about the Pharisees is that they were counting on those actions to save them. They thought they were justified by their works. Christians don't believe that. I don't obey the moral law to earn my way into heaven, I obey the moral law to show my gratitude to God for extending grace to me through His Son Jesus Christ by living in a way that He has declared is pleasing to Him.

Cool, more power to you if that's how you would like to express your gratitude. It wouldn't, and couldn't, be my way, though. I don't do something morally good in order to show my gratitude, but because Jesus is simply alive inside me. When I thank the Lord, I simply tell Him how I feel. But whatever floats your boat.

Dying to self, means dying to the pleasures and wills of the flesh. Masturbation is indulgence in the flesh, it's a sexual sin. It's fornication.

In your interpretation and opinion.

He was talking about the only law there was. He said NONE of it should pass until it was all fulfilled. IMO, it WAS all fulfilled at the cross, but even if it wasn't, I would still be DEAD to the law.

And if only part of the law has passed away, how do you reconcile that with your claim that the "ceremonial law" was actually abolished at the cross?

 

[Zecryphon]

That's not a "license to sin" though. It would be, if I were a legalist, and if my will was to actually sin.

Yes, the word means "with knowledge". However, it's not actual knowledge that makes muslims feel guilty about not praying five times a day - it's presumtion, it's a false idea. It's not the actual truth.

No, but isn't that what you mean though?

I can't think of any rules I should need, no. And no, the bible never mentions masturbation. You figure it's fornication and therefore you see it like you see fornication. I don't agree that it is, though.

No, in any church? It certainly wasn't there to begin with.

Sure. I'm not in/of the flesh though.

Romans 7:8
But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.

1 Corinthians 15:56
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

How did/could Adam and Eve know they were behaving in a way pleasing to the Lord?

God said to NOT learn right from wrong. The only law in Eden was NOT to learn about the law.

I'm not going to make the same mistake as they did.

Actually, I would, because I think people are too ruled by their fragile fleeting religious consciences and I think most people listen more to their own conscience than to their actual convictions and to the Spirit.

The bible itself NEVER addresses the "moral law" or the "ceremonial law" - that's just a man-made distinction and a way of looking at it, much like we have divided the books of the bible into chapters and verses.

Cool, more power to you if that's how you would like to express your gratitude. It wouldn't, and couldn't, be my way, though. I don't do something morally good in order to show my gratitude, but because Jesus is simply alive inside me. When I thank the Lord, I simply tell Him how I feel. But whatever floats your boat.

In your interpretation and opinion.

He was talking about the only law there was. He said NONE of it should pass until it was all fulfilled. IMO, it WAS all fulfilled at the cross, but even if it wasn't, I would still be DEAD to the law.

And if only part of the law has passed away, how do you reconcile that with your claim that the "ceremonial law" was actually abolished at the cross?

"Yes, the word means "with knowledge". However, it's not actual knowledge that makes muslims feel guilty about not praying five times a day - it's presumtion, it's a false idea. It's not the actual truth."


It is with actual knowledge that they know they have not kept or obeyed the commands or rules of their faith.

"No, but isn't that what you mean though?"

Then type it like I do. Don't misrepresent what I say as a commandment when it is nothing more than my interpretation of the scriptures.

"I can't think of any rules I should need, no. And no, the bible never mentions masturbation. You figure it's fornication and therefore you see it like you see fornication. I don't agree that it is, though."

I know. So tell us all what you see it as, if not sex with yourself.

"No, in any church? It certainly wasn't there to begin with."

I have found the answer to this question in the scriptures, by applying scriptures that deal with sexual sin to this area. It is a sexual sin. You are dealing with sexual organs, stimulating them to achieve sexual satisfaction. There's no way this falls under any other category than sexual sin.

"Sure. I'm not in/of the flesh though."

Then what's that meaty stuff stretched over your muscle and bone, if not flesh? LOL

"How did/could Adam and Eve know they were behaving in a way pleasing to the Lord?"

They had one commandment to follow. As long as they followed that command, they were living in a way pleasing to the Lord. Notice when they broke that commandment, then the Lord got angry with them. Adam followed all the other commands without a problem. For instance, that command to name all the plants and animals. They knew how to do what they were told.

"God said to NOT learn right from wrong. The only law in Eden was NOT to learn about the law."

Wrong. God told them not to eat of the tree. Gaining the knowledge of right and wrong was a consequence of their sin just like their punishment was a consequence of their sin. Their sin was not learning about the law, their sin was eating the fruit. When God spoke to them and discovered that they had gained knowledge they were not to have, He wasn't upset because they had learned, He was upset because they had eaten of the tree He commanded them not to eat of.

"I'm not going to make the same mistake as they did."

For once we agree. I agree wholeheartedly that you will do everything in your power to keep from learning anything more than you absolutely have to on this or any topic relating to theology or Christianity. You have your "get out of Hell free card", you need do nothing more except just... be the best little holo you can be according to standards you set for yourself.

"Actually, I would, because I think people are too ruled by their fragile fleeting religious consciences and I think most people listen more to their own conscience than to their actual convictions and to the Spirit."

The Spirit convicts us through our consciences. People have consciences whether they are religious or not. A conscience is not something you recieve with faith.

"The bible itself NEVER addresses the "moral law" or the "ceremonial law" - that's just a man-made distinction and a way of looking at it, much like we have divided the books of the bible into chapters and verses."

If that distinciton is man made, is that reason enough for you to discard it? If that's going to be your basis or standard for discarding doctrines, then you must be consistent in your application and discard everything you've heard preached by a man, because it's all man made. However, I don't think you will.

"Cool, more power to you if that's how you would like to express your gratitude. It wouldn't, and couldn't, be my way, though. I don't do something morally good in order to show my gratitude, but because Jesus is simply alive inside me."

Man talk about putting God in a box. LOL It's not about power, it's about submission to God.

"When I thank the Lord, I simply tell Him how I feel. But whatever floats your boat."

LOL

"In your interpretation and opinion."

Yep.

"He was talking about the only law there was. He said NONE of it should pass until it was all fulfilled. IMO, it WAS all fulfilled at the cross, but even if it wasn't, I would still be DEAD to the law."

Why? Because you choose to be? I mean let's face it, what you want to do is the basis of your theology here.

"And if only part of the law has passed away, how do you reconcile that with your claim that the "ceremonial law" was actually abolished at the cross?"

When Jesus was talking about not one jot or tittle of the law passing away I believe he was talking about the moral law, not the ceremonial law. The entire ceremonial law can not be fulfilled now because the temple has been destroyed. Jesus, being God, would know that the temple one day in the future would be destroyed, because God knows these things. So if Jesus was referring to the whole law, both moral and ceremonial being in effect until the second coming, He would have been proved to be a liar, when the temple was destroyed, which prevents the entire ceremonial law from being kept. Since Jesus is not a liar, that is not an attribute of God, He must have been referring to the moral law alone remaining in effect until the second coming.

 

[holo]

It is with actual knowledge that they know they have not kept or obeyed the commands or rules of their faith.

Yes, but they may be mistaken about the actually "commands" of their faith though.

I know. So tell us all what you see it as, if not sex with yourself.

I see it as... well, masturbation. It's sexual, but I wouldn't call it sex, because sex takes two.

I have found the answer to this question in the scriptures, by applying scriptures that deal with sexual sin to this area. It is a sexual sin. You are dealing with sexual organs, stimulating them to achieve sexual satisfaction. There's no way this falls under any other category than sexual sin.

I can't see how it does. Stimulating sexual organs... what's wrong with that? Why, exactly, is it OK for someone else to do it (assuming you're married to the person), to let you achieve sexual satisfaction with/on/by them, but not OK to do it yourself, alone? What are the actual detrimental effects of masturbation? Who/how does it hurt anyone?

"Sure. I'm not in/of the flesh though."

Then what's that meaty stuff stretched over your muscle and bone, if not flesh?

I 'm in the flesh physically, but I live and walk in the Spirit

"How did/could Adam and Eve know they were behaving in a way pleasing to the Lord?"

They had one commandment to follow. As long as they followed that command, they were living in a way pleasing to the Lord. Notice when they broke that commandment, then the Lord got angry with them. Adam followed all the other commands without a problem. For instance, that command to name all the plants and animals. They knew how to do what they were told.

But they had no commandments on unclean foods or sexuality or how to talk or pray. They didn't even know they were naked, and God had no problem with that.

Our problem is that we see things legalistically; is this right, is that sin, are those OK to indulge in? But we shouldn't be asking those questions at all! Our focus shouldn't be on law and on sin, but on the Lord. Adam and Eve walked with the Lord, and that's all they ever needed.

"God said to NOT learn right from wrong. The only law in Eden was NOT to learn about the law."

Wrong. God told them not to eat of the tree. Gaining the knowledge of right and wrong was a consequence of their sin just like their punishment was a consequence of their sin. Their sin was not learning about the law, their sin was eating the fruit.

But that's one and the same. The tree's NAME was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil".

When God spoke to them and discovered that they had gained knowledge they were not to have, He wasn't upset because they had learned

Yes, He was, because He would rather they hadn't learned and hadn't known that they were in fact naked.

Don't just stop at what God commanded. Consider WHY He commanded it. Consider WHY He didn't want them to know about right and wrong.

Anyway, sin and death came through Adam. But HOW MUCH MORE will we be reconciled and made alive through Christ! Our reconciliation, our return to Eden, spiritually, is MORE powerful than Adam's fall. I live like Adam did, I simply walk with God, I have my eyes on HIM, instead of looking at my nudity, as it were, or dividing life into right/wrong.

The Spirit convicts us through our consciences. People have consciences whether they are religious or not. A conscience is not something you recieve with faith.

The Spirit doesn't necessarily line up with your conscience. When Peter was told to eat even "unclean" animals, it wasn't his conscience that was changed, but the Spirit spoke to him. Our conscience needs time to change and to keep up with our convictions, if they change.

It's VERY dangerous to assume that the Spirit is telling you something just because your conscience approves or denies something.

If that distinciton is man made, is that reason enough for you to discard it?

Not per se, but I see no such distinction in the bible. I have no reason at all to assume that the law was ever divided, or that there were in fact several different laws.

Man talk about putting God in a box. LOL It's not about power, it's about submission to God.

Maybe I've misunderstood the expression "more power to ya". I thought it was a way of saying "if it works for you, I'm all for it!" That's what I meant anyway.

Why? Because you choose to be?

Because I was crucified WITH Him.

I mean let's face it, what you want to do is the basis of your theology here.

The cross is the basis of my theology.

When Jesus was talking about not one jot or tittle of the law passing away I believe he was talking about the moral law, not the ceremonial law. The entire ceremonial law can not be fulfilled now because the temple has been destroyed. Jesus, being God, would know that the temple one day in the future would be destroyed, because God knows these things. So if Jesus was referring to the whole law, both moral and ceremonial being in effect until the second coming, He would have been proved to be a liar, when the temple was destroyed, which prevents the entire ceremonial law from being kept. Since Jesus is not a liar, that is not an attribute of God, He must have been referring to the moral law alone remaining in effect until the second coming.

That's pretty far-fetched.

When Jesus said "until all is fulfilled," He was talking about His own life and death and resurrection - He fulfilled the law. But the most important thing is that we who believe are DEAD to the law - it doesn't matter whether or not the law still stands, because the law only applies to living people. We died, and it is IN HIM that we now live. The law has no claim on us, ceremonial or moral or whatever. My source of life, my source of goodness and my source for doing the right things, is JESUS HIMSELF, not the law.

 

[Zecryphon]

"I can't see how it does. Stimulating sexual organs... what's wrong with that? Why, exactly, is it OK for someone else to do it (assuming you're married to the person), to let you achieve sexual satisfaction with/on/by them, but not OK to do it yourself, alone? What are the actual detrimental effects of masturbation? Who/how does it hurt anyone?"

So the act has to actually hurt someone physically before you stop doing it? Or is emotinal pain enough of a reason to stop doing it? The act of self-pleasure denies God's design for human sexuality. By masturbating you are saying in essence that even though God has provided a current or future partner for you, that's not good enough. No, you know a better way, than what God has laid out. That line of thinking has been humanity's downfall since the Garden of Eden. Man claiming to know better than God what he needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zecryphon
"How did/could Adam and Eve know they were behaving in a way pleasing to the Lord?"

They had one commandment to follow. As long as they followed that command, they were living in a way pleasing to the Lord. Notice when they broke that commandment, then the Lord got angry with them. Adam followed all the other commands without a problem. For instance, that command to name all the plants and animals. They knew how to do what they were told.

"But they had no commandments on unclean foods or sexuality or how to talk or pray. They didn't even know they were naked, and God had no problem with that."

But now we do have commands about certain behaviors and you refuse to follow them.

"Our problem is that we see things legalistically; is this right, is that sin, are those OK to indulge in? But we shouldn't be asking those questions at all! Our focus shouldn't be on law and on sin, but on the Lord. Adam and Eve walked with the Lord, and that's all they ever needed."

Apparently not.

"Don't just stop at what God commanded. Consider WHY He commanded it. Consider WHY He didn't want them to know about right and wrong."

You have no idea of knowing why God commanded that and any conclusion you come to will be speculation on your part and nothing more. Deal with what the text actually says and not what you think it says. Rely on the Holy Spirit, not your own human understandings.

"Anyway, sin and death came through Adam. But HOW MUCH MORE will we be reconciled and made alive through Christ! Our reconciliation, our return to Eden, spiritually, is MORE powerful than Adam's fall. I live like Adam did, I simply walk with God, I have my eyes on HIM, instead of looking at my nudity, as it were, or dividing life into right/wrong."

You focus on the aspects of God that you want to focus on. You cherry pick. You focus on the grace and ignore the wrath. When a person does that they tend to forget why and how they earned God's wrath in the first place and by doing that cheapen His grace and mercy. They forget that they still sin, they will deny they still sin and will think that they are good now and forget that they need God's forgiveness daily for their sins. They live a life of pride instead a life of thankfulness and repentance before God.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zecryphon
The Spirit convicts us through our consciences. People have consciences whether they are religious or not. A conscience is not something you recieve with faith.

"The Spirit doesn't necessarily line up with your conscience."

You said it yourself holo, conscience means "with knowledge." It is with knowledge that we know lying, murdering, stealing, adultery, blasphemy, etc. are wrong. Our consciences line up with God's moral law. Why? Beacuse it is God's moral law that is the basis of our conscience. When we violate that we know immediately, in every fiber of our being that we have done something wrong.

"When Peter was told to eat even "unclean" animals, it wasn't his conscience that was changed, but the Spirit spoke to him. Our conscience needs time to change and to keep up with our convictions, if they change."

I disagree that the the conscience changes. The nature of the person changes, the conscience stays the same. The Holy Spirit convicts a person of their sin by using the conscience and the law contained there.

"It's VERY dangerous to assume that the Spirit is telling you something just because your conscience approves or denies something."

Your conscience is knowledge of right and wrong, it does not approve or deny anything. The person can either listen to their conscience or ignore it. People tend to ignore what their conscience tells them and do what society tells them instead, or rely upon their own understanding. It doesn't mean the conscience is wrong or needs to change.

"Not per se, but I see no such distinction in the bible. I have no reason at all to assume that the law was ever divided, or that there were in fact several different laws."

Then you need to investigate the Torah and learn about it. Learn about the Jewish law and how Jews such as Jesus and Paul understood it, to keep things such as this in context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zecryphon
When Jesus was talking about not one jot or tittle of the law passing away I believe he was talking about the moral law, not the ceremonial law. The entire ceremonial law can not be fulfilled now because the temple has been destroyed. Jesus, being God, would know that the temple one day in the future would be destroyed, because God knows these things. So if Jesus was referring to the whole law, both moral and ceremonial being in effect until the second coming, He would have been proved to be a liar, when the temple was destroyed, which prevents the entire ceremonial law from being kept. Since Jesus is not a liar, that is not an attribute of God, He must have been referring to the moral law alone remaining in effect until the second coming.

"That's pretty far-fetched."

I knew you wouldn't understand it.

"When Jesus said "until all is fulfilled," He was talking about His own life and death and resurrection - He fulfilled the law. But the most important thing is that we who believe are DEAD to the law - it doesn't matter whether or not the law still stands, because the law only applies to living people. We died, and it is IN HIM that we now live. The law has no claim on us, ceremonial or moral or whatever."

The penalty for violation of the moral law is what has been set aside, that's what you've been freed from. God's wrath, nothing else.

"My source of life, my source of goodness and my source for doing the right things, is JESUS HIMSELF, not the law."

You have no way of knowing what the right thing to do is, because you have no standard by which to judge what is right and what is wrong. God's moral law is that standard, but since you believe you are dead to God's moral law, you also believe that you are dead to your conscience. You are living a life of lawlessness, like a crimminal, and those are the people who fear the law at every turn and hate it and want nothing to do with it.

You hate the law because it brings your deeds of darkness and sin to the light and exposes them and you can't have that, because you're supposed to be a Christian and if people found out you still sinned, oh the horror that would be. Yep, best for you, if you deny the law and keep denying, denying, denying. If you love God you will do all that He commands out of love and respect. You've made it clear repeatedly that you want nothing to do with any of that. You just want to be and live as you see fit, just like a crimminal in today's society who has no respect for the law or the people who enforce it.

 

[Breetai]

１００％ agreed with that last post.

Holo, you would be very wise to strongly consider it. You not only go against the grain with what you are saying, but against what the Bible clearly says about sin itself. It's not an issue about masturbation here, it's about God's law and how we are saved through God's Grace.

 

[Shiversblood]

So the act has to actually hurt someone physically before you stop doing it? Or is emotinal pain enough of a reason to stop doing it? The act of self-pleasure denies God's design for human sexuality. By masturbating you are saying in essence that even though God has provided a current or future partner for you, that's not good enough.

Holo may never get married, So that logic is flawed.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Holo may never get married, So that logic is flawed.

Why should he? Throw in large bottle of Coke and a bag of Cheezits and he's got it made!

 

[Gukkor]

Holo may never get married, So that logic is flawed.

Indeed. Moroever, it is not as if there is a finite amount of sexual pleasure in the world. One does not deprive one's current/future partner of sexual pleasure by masturbating.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Indeed. Moroever, it is not as if there is a finite amount of sexual pleasure in the world. One does not deprive one's current/future partner of sexual pleasure by masturbating.

Yes he does. In the heart.

 

[Shiversblood]

Yes he does. In the heart.

I don't understand the logic behind that. I think it only makes your future marriage worse if you allow it to become worse. When have you ever heard a married man say to you, "If only I didn't masturbait things would be different."

 

[Zecryphon]

Holo may never get married, So that logic is flawed.

"Holo may never get married, So that logic is flawed."

HAHAHAHA! This is gettin' positively comical now. What holo decides to do in regards to his marital status has no bearing on what God has said is the proper context in which to engage in sexual relations, which in case you missed it thus far, is marriage. Any other situation or context is adultery.

 

[Shiversblood]

Adultery requires two people.

 

[KingJames1002]

yup it is a sin...not only a sin but will make you go blind...

blind spiritually not psychically

 

[Floatingaxe]

I don't understand the logic behind that. I think it only makes your future marriage worse if you allow it to become worse. When have you ever heard a married man say to you, "If only I didn't masturbait things would be different."

As you grow older into your adulthood, you will realize that a man and woman of God does think those kinds of things when they finally come to that place in life of maturity in life and their walk with God. It is called regret.

It is a wasted and wasting behaviour.

 

[Zecryphon]

Adultery requires two people.

Not according to Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28. Just thinking about sex with another person, regardless of whether the person is physically present or not, makes you guilty of adultery.

 

[Breetai]

I don't understand the logic behind that.

Not now, but one day you may.

Have you ever had a significant other cry because she knew that you masterbated; thinking that she wasn't good enough for you... that you had to take matters into your own hands?

I think that is part of what Floatingaxe is getting at.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Not now, but one day you may.

Have you ever had a significant other cry because she knew that you masterbated; thinking that she wasn't good enough for you... that you had to take matters into your own hands?

I think that is part of what Floatingaxe is getting at.

Yes, Been there, done that.

 

[Zecryphon]

Yes, Been there, done that.

Hey how many more posts until we can label this thread as "a dead horse"?

 

[Floatingaxe]

Hey how many more posts until we can label this thread as "a dead horse"?

 

[Breetai]

See... masturbation in itself may not technically be a sin, but it is surrounded by it. How often does masturbation not involves imagining another person? Rarely (is there anyone who never imagines copulating with another when they have a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]?). It is therefore already sinful most of the time. On top of that, if you have a Bible-believing Christian spouse, they are very likely to be bothered by this sort of action that is not likely habitual. It takes away from what your spouse should be giving you, and it takes away from their enjoyment. Someone else is now being hurt by this, and it is again sinful. Doing such a sexual act is also prone to lead the mind to thinking about sexual things more often, thereby distracting one from their regular duties in life (work, family, prayer, Bible study, etc. (all things a Christian should be concerned about regularly!!!)).

The fact is that even if it's not a sin in itself, it brings one to sin nearly all of the time. Why would any Christian who is serious about their relationship with Christ even want to try to make a strong case for masturbation, even if they are able to keep their minds clean when they do it; let alone trying to encourage struggling Christians to do it more often(!!!)? It just wouldn't be worth their time, or would even be sinful as it may lead others to sin (in the case of encouraging it).