masturbation!!!

[Samsara]

That is VERY interesting and makes sense. The only problem that you seem to forget about is the fact that masturbation IS addictive, just like any other sexual or fleshly act. It is very possible to stop the addiction, but doing so can be very impossible.

It is addictive for whom? Please define addiction in this sense.

This is akin to saying "The only problem that you seem to forget about is the fact that alcohol IS addictive..." But it's not for all people. You seem to attach your experiences and reverse them into the world view.

I know that my sex drive and fleshly need/want for sex has increased 10 fold because of my past with masturbation. Because of this, it puts a problem infront of me and my girlfriend. WHY? Well for one, I shouldn't lust after her nor anyone else.

I understand this may be true for you but it's dangerously reckless to say as a matter of general discourse that because it's true for you it's true for all. Here are some scenarios:

My husband confronted a would-be intruder one night with a gun. Would it, therefore, be true for me that I should have done the same thing while home alone? [Considering I have never learned how to shoot a gun, and have no experience with them? Who would have told me that the safety was on as I attempted to fire because he was coming closer? What would have happened other than making him very scared and consequently angry?]

Everytime I have ever had a glass of alcohol, I would stay that way - in constant craving and addiction and drunk most of the time for years - is it true then for me to start the new temperance movement because I *know* how addictive alcohol is for people?

I am abstinent from sugar because it affects me badly. Because this is my truth do I need to now start a campaign to get all candy off the shelves because I *know* how bad it is for people?

All I ever *know* at any given moment is my personal truth for me and even THAT is subject to reinterpretation with a new experience or perception. For me to generalize as a *knowing what's best for you* throws me off into my ego [born from as you would call it *the flesh*] which is the only sin that separates me from God.

I am sure you of all people realize that we sin with our minds as well.
With that said, if masturbation is not stopped, my bodily will need another release: Wanting to have sexual with my girlfriend. This, however, suffers even more consequences of sin. Still the same sin, but the consequences will be greater.

It sounds as if you have a problem with it and perhaps you should seek abstinence from it. However, not all people become addicted to it, apparently, as you have. My heart goes out to you but there are other ways to recover other than prostelyzing the evils of it for all of mankind. Besides, what we resists persists. Your apparent anger over its grip in your life will not be solved by shouting how bad it is for everyone - because not all people are you.

Not to mention that my girlfriend DOESNOT want me masturbating, but all together wanted me to stop, because it is sin, and it is disrespectful to her and God.

I understand that and respect your respecting your girlfriends wishes.

We are to worship God constantly and pray without ceasing. Sorry, but masturbation IS self gradification and a very selfish and sinful act. Men and women can live without it, and thier spirit will be much healthier. I for one can say that and mean it... Granted it is always a struggle, but the temptation is beatable.

To say that masturbation is not a sin is to simply rationalize Gods level of righteousness He wants in our Lives.

Some may say that shaving ones legs or face or putting lotion on their body, or working out or getting a massage is a very selfish and sinful act. We could all live without these things...in fact there are most things in my life I can live without but I refute aceticism today.

My spirit is peaceful and non-argumentative and I hate nothing. I fear nothing. I don't even fear my own addictions. I just don't do the acts that would allow them a starting point again. If my spirit were "healthier" I don't think God could stand it.

Heres an interesting fact: If everyone did not habitually desire the sexual feeling that one recieves with masturbation, there would be almost no rape.

Where did that fact come from? If it was all about the sexual feeling associated with masturbation, as you posit, then how and why would the theoretical rapist ever leave his house? Wouldn't he be too busy "with himself?" Especially if it's so addictive as you point out in your first paragraph.

Why Men Rape http://www.cosatu.org.za/shop/shop0901/shop0901-08.html
===========
"This man and his friends are using rape to punish women who do not behave in ways members of Sara consider acceptable in women."

Why Does A Man Rape? http://www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/studyg/men.html
==================
"Since the 1970s when Susan Brown-Miller published her ground-breaking book, Against Our Will, rape has been viewed as a crime of control and violence, not as a sexual crime. Psychologists who work with sex offenders see several kinds of offenders, including those for whom rape is a desire to dominate or control, those for whom it is an extension of anger, and those who seem to have been motivated by sex. Psychologists who work with rapists say many men view forcing sex with a woman as a validation of their manhood."

Male Rape Information Sheet http://www.rapecrisiscenter.com/Male%20Rape%20Info%20Sheet.html
=====================
"No matter what was said or done or worn, no one "asks for" or deserves to be assaulted. Sexual assault has nothing to do with someone's present or future sexual orientation. Sexual assault is a crime of violence and power, not of lust or passion."

It's all over the place...the reason why men [and women] rape. It's not about lust, passion or raging sexual drives...it's about objectification, power, and control. [ie...ego's need for control of "the situation" like how I see many people hitting the Bible over other peoples' head begins with the ego's survival instinct to *be right*.]

I wish you well in your cessation of your problem and there are support groups for all sorts of addictions if you feel yourself wavering.

Love, peace and light,
Samsara

 

[Eph. 3:20]

I don't use the Bible for my morality. Objective morality is not true morality is it? Then isn't it just a fear-based submission?

Well, it's certainly your choice to use whatever you find acceptable to gauge morality, however with that approach everybody would have a different morality and there would be no universal wrong or right. No, it's not fear;it's submission based on love and respect.

Isn't "Hell" in Christianity often the tool for beating people over the head with a morality stick? Scared straight so to speak? [Except I did have some really kind and Good News sharing Lutherans as neighbors once. I quite dug their religion.]

Misguided Christians have often used hell or the threat of hell as a "tool" of submission yes. It sounds like the Lutherans you befriended had the proper perspective.

I don't believe in an afterlife netherworld called Hell so threats don't scare me and objective morality doesn't work with me in any form whatever. I've been to the real Hell in this life and came out on the other side so very little, if anything, can scare or frighten me into submission...

My morality, therefore, comes from no book but rather comes from the Spirit:

Isn't your knowledge of the Holy Spirit derived from the same place that speaks of and designates this place called hell and also dictates what is and what is not moral?

How can you choose to clearly accept one and yet reject the others within the same reference material?

If the Holy Ghost dwells within, which is my particular philosophy, I do not need to check it against the Bible though I believe the Bible to be a nice teaching tool for those who struggle with their *still quiet voice.* Still has some really good Bible stories for children [ie, Why rainbows exist, etc.] but as my authoritative source for morality...Why would Jesus have to die then? Why not then simply continue with the God of the Old Testament in following the *rules* and *scripture*?

Did Jesus come, according to Christians, to set them free or to add another aspect to the story? BC: Old Testament AD: Old Testament PLUS grace?

Someone dying on behalf of others is not immoral. Jesus died because God has a system of justice that is universal that He also abides by; and that was that the penalty for sin was death. A single man could take the place and pay the punishment for another man but only the creator of all humanity could take the place and bare the punishement of a sinful and guilty humanity.

Accordingly, if one follows the OT teachings on this, you're dirty and have to sacrifice some animals due to your filth and take many baths and wash many things and consider anything you apparently touch unclean. So there's the Bible's *morality* on the issue.

Or maybe I have it all wrong regarding what Christianity is about. Or maybe Jesus does have an opinion on "this issue" [pun intended] and I just haven't found it yet by way of direct Biblical *quotation* or Biblical logical extension [ie. Moses said God said so and Jesus said everything Moses said is true and that Jesus was just here to offer another condition for salvation to meet].

The passages you quoted from the Mosiac Law were for the purposes of setting apart Israel as a nation in the midst of other pagan nations. Israel was to be seprerate (i.e. Holy) and not to conform to the idol worship and ceremonies of those surrounding idolatrous nations. These "rules of law" ceased when Jesus came. It should also be noted that these cultural/ceremonial laws were only given to the nation of Israel and not to the Gentiles.

From a Biblical perspective morality is very simple and quite clear and can be found in Matthew 22:37-40, "And He said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ “This is the great and foremost commandment.
“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’
“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

So what becomes immoral is what breaches our love for God or our love for neighbor. Christians get so wrapped up in trying to obey commands that they miss the bigger picture or principle. That is that love dictates what is wrong or what is right. As far as masturbation is concerned, I like what Jesus said about the subject....nothing! If masturbating does not violate our love for God or our love for neighbor then a Christian is free to persue the practice.

"Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law." (Rom. 13:10)

Hope this helps,

Eph.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

The next thing to be suggested will be female circumcision where little girls have their cliterous cut off at about age twelve to ensure she is sexually pure at marriage. We wouldn't want her discovering her goodie bits and sinning before she meets her husband. This is what several third world countries still sanction (unofficially) and millions of girls are subjected to this horror due to ignorance, and to make sure she avoid masturbation and wont be tempted into extra marital affairs if she doesnt enjoy sex.

Your not serious.....you would....do that to your kid?

 

[MariaGlitter]

Do people even want to do mastur.... whatever? lol

Ewwie lol

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Just because monkeys do it doesn't make it moral. We aren't animals.

Well we are not plants.

Ghost

 

[MariaGlitter]

I "sort of" agree

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Do people even want to do mastur.... whatever? lol

Ewwie lol

Actually yes.
I think its a natural function of organisms with more developed sex drives. It may come off as a bit...uncomfortable for some people, but theres nothing sick or twisted about it.

Actually, regular masturbation (I think it was 2-3 times a week) can help lessen the chances for a man to get colon cancer.

 

[lijeb]

The bible says a man should not 'spill his seed' (i forget where that is written), though I don't see why as a man would never use all that sperm.

The seed spilling in the Bible had absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. The gentleman (?) Onan was required by law to get his dead brother's wife pregnant so that his dead brother would have an heir. Onan did not want his brother' to have an heir, and so he took his pleasure of the lady, but spilled his seed on the ground. Hardly masturbation...

 

[GreenDragon]

Well we are not plants.

Ghost

True, we are definitely animals, just sentient ones.

Do people even want to do mastur.... whatever? lol

Ewwie lol

Uhh, yeah. Have been living on another planet or something?

 

[Samsara]

Well, it's certainly your choice to use whatever you find acceptable to gauge morality, however with that approach everybody would have a different morality and there would be no universal wrong or right. No, it's not fear;it's submission based on love and respect.

Everyone still has and will continue to have a different morality - [As you can see from this thread.] Just because one's reasons for not acting on the impulse of whatever - some would say - questionable morality does not mean that inherently - if left to their own devices - they would not slide into the throes of the line they currently do not cross. I think what we're into here is the acting upon the bases of their inherent moral compass.

Misguided Christians have often used hell or the threat of hell as a "tool" of submission yes. It sounds like the Lutherans you befriended had the proper perspective.

Yes, they were really good kind people. They moved from here and it saddened me but frquently the husband would bring me literature as I was under the misgudance that Christianity - and for the most part, where I am living - is a condemning religion. NOT based on love and respect but based on rules and threats of Hell [capital H].

Isn't your knowledge of the Holy Spirit derived from the same place that speaks of and designates this place called hell and also dictates what is and what is not moral?

I see how you could think that but no. I can explain this easily. Yes, calling it the *Holy Spirit* is derived from the Bible source but I use that in my expression with Christians. There are other terms for this pre-dating Christendom such as prana, digin, ch'i, qi, ki, reiki, wodan, universal intelligence, living force, ka, will to live....etc...and so forth. The term "holy spirit" is the term when I use in relating with Christians. Christians call it *Holy Spirit.* Often, as people we argue words and not ideas and that's not very useful so I try to speak in language people understand.

How can you choose to clearly accept one and yet reject the others within the same reference material?

I think this may be clear by now. But I have to comment on the reference material... which hell would I need to believe in? The Sheol/Hades mythology translated Hell or the incinerator hell that was a part of Jerusalem when Jesus was alive?

==================================
Mat 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell [Strong's 1067] fire .

Strong 1067: [pronounced geenna {gheh'-en-nah}] : Biblical usage - Hell is the place of the future punishment call "Gehenna" or "Gehenna of fire". This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction. [Hebrew origin 01516 and 02011]

01516: {gah'-ee} valley
02011: {hin-nome'} Hinnom: [Literal Lamentation]


2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell [Strong's 5020], and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Strong's 5020: [pronounced tartaroo {tar-tar-o'-o}]: Biblical usage - 1) the name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds; it answers to Gehenna of the Jews 2) to thrust down to Tartarus, to hold captive in Tartarus.

==================================​

​

To me, symbolism and literalism in the Bible become intertwined to such an extent - which is not terrible but for people's casting a silly judgement on people of 2005. There is no more lake of fire. It's a beautiful valley now and the only tartaroo appears in only the above which sounds to me is based in Greek mythology....as is the Sheol and Hades translations:​

==================================

Deuternomy 32:22: For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell [hebrew 07585], and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. [hebrew 07585: [pronounciation sh@'owl {sheh-ole'} or sh@ol {sheh-ole'} - 1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit a) the underworld b) Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead 1) place of no return 2) without praise of God 3) wicked sent there for punishment 4) righteous not abandoned to it 5) of the place of exile (fig) 6) of extreme degradation in sin.​

==================================

​

Someone dying on behalf of others is not immoral. Jesus died because God has a system of justice that is universal that He also abides by; and that was that the penalty for sin was death. A single man could take the place and pay the punishment for another man but only the creator of all humanity could take the place and bare the punishement of a sinful and guilty humanity.

I did not say, infer or imply that anyone dying for anything is immoral. I do not really understand what you're trying to convey here. I was trying to convey that either Jesus died *for freedom for people* OR he died to bring just another aspect in tandem with the Law of Moses. It's an either/or situation posited to Christians with respect to their beliefs today.

One either believes that Jesus died to cancel out the Law of Moses [or to fulfill the law thereby cancelling it out] or that the Law of Moses is still in effect and add to that, now there is *grace* - for what? JUST IN CASE one cannot live up to the OT laws? Point being that *the issue* issue from the Bible I quoted was from the Torah [Law] that consists of the five Mosaic books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy....and Leviticus is where I found the *Rules for playing* - that if you do, apparently you're filthy and must sacrifice animals to your place of worship.

The passages you quoted from the Mosiac Law were for the purposes of setting apart Israel as a nation in the midst of other pagan nations. Israel was to be seprerate (i.e. Holy) and not to conform to the idol worship and ceremonies of those surrounding idolatrous nations. These "rules of law" ceased when Jesus came. It should also be noted that these cultural/ceremonial laws were only given to the nation of Israel and not to the Gentiles.

Thanks for that. I see and understand then that you're going with my Lutheran friends' perspectives in that the laws ceased when Jesus came. That therefore, this no longer applies. And yes, NOT given to the Gentiles. It's good to know the audience and the times for which pieces of the Bible are written.

From a Biblical perspective morality is very simple and quite clear and can be found in Matthew 22:37-40, "And He said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ “This is the great and foremost commandment.
“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’
“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

Yes. But when you say *Biblical perspective* you innately refer to the New Testament right? I do the same thing but [as you've called them], "misguided Christians" take the entire Bible and use that as their reference for morality - usually, from what I see - against other people.

So what becomes immoral is what breaches our love for God or our love for neighbor. Christians get so wrapped up in trying to obey commands that they miss the bigger picture or principle. That is that love dictates what is wrong or what is right. As far as masturbation is concerned, I like what Jesus said about the subject....nothing! If masturbating does not violate our love for God or our love for neighbor then a Christian is free to persue the practice.

RIGHT! Now we're cooking.

"Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law." (Rom. 13:10)

Hope this helps,

Eph.

It did help very much. I appreciate your response.
Love, Peace and Light,
Samsara

 

[mjhgecko]

Masturbation is natural and healthy; there has been evidence of monkeys and other primates engaging in masturbation and even [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] and [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's not a pervesion by humans.

I don't know if that makes it not a sin, but I wonder what a "sin" actually is.

I love it when people use the "it occurs in nature" argument to justify there morality. Pure fallacy. Animals also engage in cannibalism and incest.

 

[Phred]

I love it when people use the "it occurs in nature" argument to justify there morality. Pure fallacy. Animals also engage in cannibalism and incest.

Why is cannabalism morally wrong? Why is incest?

.​

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Incest has developed to be morally wrong because it has serious health repercussions. Inbreeding can cause numerous genetic defects therefore it was considered bad, allthough many royal and aristocratic famililes often married a brother and sister to keep the blood within the family.

 

[Travis]

And this selfish ungoldy squandering does it extend to wet dreams?

What a nonsence - masturbation is a release and while we are talking sex, lets not be sexist, women touch too for release. And I would far rather my sons and daughters were sorting things out for themselves (with privacy and discretion) than they were finding pre marital sex partners.

You cant get STD's from masturbation.
You cant get her pregnant.
You maintain your virginity status (providing you havent already given this away already).
You get to know what your body is and what it does without fornication.

And further, your teens and especially your teen sons are likely almost certainly discovering this for themselves. And you want to add guilt to their shoulders for being selfish, dirty and wicked?

Are we to really suggest that a man should get to marriage at lets say an average age of 25ish without experiencing a single ejeculation? Legs crossed, eyes crossed waiting patiently for his bride being a good Christian lad that he is determined not to sin.

My husband had to store sperm at a fertility clinic - was this sinful given that he had to shut himself into a room with a jar for the process?? On another occassion he needed to have two clear tests after his vasectomy - tests that didnt involve me at the clinic. All wicked sin??

The next thing to be suggested will be female circumcision where little girls have their cliterous cut off at about age twelve to ensure she is sexually pure at marriage. We wouldn't want her discovering her goodie bits and sinning before she meets her husband. This is what several third world countries still sanction (unofficially) and millions of girls are subjected to this horror due to ignorance, and to make sure she avoid masturbation and wont be tempted into extra marital affairs if she doesnt enjoy sex.

It is nice to see a sensible intelligent post.

 

[GreenDragon]

I love it when people use the "it occurs in nature" argument to justify there morality. Pure fallacy. Animals also engage in cannibalism and incest.

I never used it to justify morality, but in a nother thread on this topic it came up that it "wasn't natural" so the question shouldn't even be brought up of whether it's okay or not. Just dispelling that early on in case it happens.

And although we're not here to discuss cannibalism or incest, Phred has a point, what's morally wrong with it?

Honestly, I think more people on this forum need to touch. it may just loosen them up a bit.

Hahahaha XD

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

It is addictive for whom? Please define addiction in this sense.

This is akin to saying "The only problem that you seem to forget about is the fact that alcohol IS addictive..." But it's not for all people. You seem to attach your experiences and reverse them into the world view.

Considering the fact that mens sexuallity is much different and much more "intense" then a females, it does not surprise me in the least you would say this.

EVERY MAN deals with this issue. Few conqure it- simple truth.

I understand this may be true for you but it's dangerously reckless to say as a matter of general discourse that because it's true for you it's true for all. Here are some scenarios:

My husband confronted a would-be intruder one night with a gun. Would it, therefore, be true for me that I should have done the same thing while home alone? [Considering I have never learned how to shoot a gun, and have no experience with them? Who would have told me that the safety was on as I attempted to fire because he was coming closer? What would have happened other than making him very scared and consequently angry?]

Everytime I have ever had a glass of alcohol, I would stay that way - in constant craving and addiction and drunk most of the time for years - is it true then for me to start the new temperance movement because I *know* how addictive alcohol is for people?

Your first scenarios seems very irrellevant to me. If you could, please explain it.

As far as the alcohol goes, yes, it would behoove of you to start a temprence movement as you have said. Why not? As I have stated before, anything fleshly is addictive. However, of course, the addictions stength is EXTREMELY circumstantual. I for one like to think of myself as strong minded and so would others I know, but that does not make my other addictions simply go away.

I am abstinent from sugar because it affects me badly. Because this is my truth do I need to now start a campaign to get all candy off the shelves because I *know* how bad it is for people?

Yes, sugar is addictive, but now you are becoming ridicilous and you know it, nor will I say anything more about this irrational statement.

All I ever *know* at any given moment is my personal truth for me and even THAT is subject to reinterpretation with a new experience or perception. For me to generalize as a *knowing what's best for you* throws me off into my ego [born from as you would call it *the flesh*] which is the only sin that separates me from God.

Well knowing that over 90% of men (just a low estimated guess) in america have this addiction to masturbation, or has had at one time, (more than likely ended once they were married) I would hope you would change your thinking. As I stated before, masturbation can cause, and has proof of being the source of rapes, and violence. Every single rapist in america was "addicted" to pornography, and along with pronography comes masturbation and the bodly need for sex. You may not know this, but lack of sexual needs creates frustration and even anger and violence in some men. This can happen to ANY man if the circumstances are right.

It sounds as if you have a problem with it and perhaps you should seek abstinence from it. However, not all people become addicted to it, apparently, as you have. My heart goes out to you but there are other ways to recover other than prostelyzing the evils of it for all of mankind. Besides, what we resists persists. Your apparent anger over its grip in your life will not be solved by shouting how bad it is for everyone - because not all people are you.

"however not all people come addicited from it"

I will use your *I know* method here. YOU do not know this. For women, yes you are absolutly right, but for men, you are almost dead wrong.

Some may say that shaving ones legs or face or putting lotion on their body, or working out or getting a massage is a very selfish and sinful act. We could all live without these things...in fact there are most things in my life I can live without but I refute aceticism today.

I guess this would depend on your intentions, motives, and desire of your heart.

My spirit is peaceful and non-argumentative and I hate nothing. I fear nothing. I don't even fear my own addictions. I just don't do the acts that would allow them a starting point again. If my spirit were "healthier" I don't think God could stand it.

Hate nothing? I am assuming that you know we are to hate evil... Including acts of violence, sexual harrasment, and the sources from where it comes from. Ultimatly, it is from the person themselves and the choices they make, but how can we help that?

Where did that fact come from? If it was all about the sexual feeling associated with masturbation, as you posit, then how and why would the theoretical rapist ever leave his house? Wouldn't he be too busy "with himself?" Especially if it's so addictive as you point out in your first paragraph.

This question scares me.... seriously. You really must have a very ignorant view point on mens sexuallity. Why not just stay at home? Because they want the real thing. Every person desires for a fantasy to become reallity, whether it is possible or not.

Why Men Rape http://www.cosatu.org.za/shop/shop0901/shop0901-08.html
===========
"This man and his friends are using rape to punish women who do not behave in ways members of Sara consider acceptable in women."

Why Does A Man Rape? http://www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/studyg/men.html
==================
"Since the 1970s when Susan Brown-Miller published her ground-breaking book, Against Our Will, rape has been viewed as a crime of control and violence, not as a sexual crime. Psychologists who work with sex offenders see several kinds of offenders, including those for whom rape is a desire to dominate or control, those for whom it is an extension of anger, and those who seem to have been motivated by sex. Psychologists who work with rapists say many men view forcing sex with a woman as a validation of their manhood."

Male Rape Information Sheet http://www.rapecrisiscenter.com/Male%20Rape%20Info%20Sheet.html
=====================
"No matter what was said or done or worn, no one "asks for" or deserves to be assaulted. Sexual assault has nothing to do with someone's present or future sexual orientation. Sexual assault is a crime of violence and power, not of lust or passion."

It's all over the place...the reason why men [and women] rape. It's not about lust, passion or raging sexual drives...it's about objectification, power, and control. [ie...ego's need for control of "the situation" like how I see many people hitting the Bible over other peoples' head begins with the ego's survival instinct to *be right*.]

"[ie...ego's need for control of "the situation" like how I see many people hitting the Bible over other peoples' head begins with the ego's survival instinct to *be right*.] "

First off, I used very little scripture, if any at all. I used more basic morals facts more so than anything. Your statement here is a controdicition in itself.

Secondly, if a man had no sexual desire, most men will not rape women. The only thing that causes a man (or women) to rape another is because of that dominance you talked about with your links, but it first needs a source: SEXUALLITY.
Not to mention that the point of what I was talking about is that nearly every rapists is addicited to masturbation and pornography.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

And although we're not here to discuss cannibalism or incest, Phred has a point, what's morally wrong with it?

God's laws were designed to protect people from being injured. Thus I cannot harm you or take something from you that is not mine to take. This is what we call moral or immoral. What is moral is for me to act in your favor to be immoral is to act act with disfavor and to injure you.

In the case of incest, no explanation is given in Scripture as to why it is prohibited, but given the nature of God's laws we can make a few good assumtions. The nature of familial relationships makes close blood relatives especially vulnerable to manipulation, heartbreak, jealousy and abuse. Close family members share close family bonds that make them especially vulnerable to sexual advances. Age differences between family members make young ones easy prey for adults that want to take advantage of them. Jealousy. fear, disappointment, disillusionment, confusion - all such emotions are too easily created by sex between close family members. In such ways incest harms people.

It is the nature of God's laws to forbid what is harmful to other people of dishonoring to God. Therefore incest laws must fit that category. It is not the "uncleanliness" of the sex act, but the harmful of incest that makes it wrong.

In the case of cannibalism, I think it is more about the murder of the person in order to eat the body. If the person has died naturally I would assume it's about respect for the dead and respect for the feelings and reverence of those related and associated with the deceased. Like everything else, our motives will determine the sinfulness of our actions. Was it immoral for the pioneers of 1846, stranded under heavy snowfall at Donner pass, to eat those that perished in order that the rest of them might survive? I think not.

Be blessed,

Eph.

 

[Gracchus]

If you have never masturbated, raise your hand. Be sure to wipe your fingers first.



Seriously....but how can we take this seriously? Our government is engaged in an unjustified war, dropping bombs on innocents, torturing, and holding people without indictment or trial, and serving the interests of the rich while reducing the rest of to slavery. I believe the operative phrase here is "straining at gnats and swallowing camels."

 

[jgarden]

Honestly, I think more people on this forum need to touch. it may just loosen them up a bit.

"When the temptation to touch is strong, yell "STOP!" to those thoughts as loudly as you can in your mind. Then recite a portion of the Bible or sing a hymn." (Mormon Guide to Self-Control)

How many portions of the Bible and hymns do you know before you "loosen up?

 

[Antoninus Verus]

"When the temptation to touch is strong, yell "STOP!" to those thoughts as loudly as you can in your mind. Then recite a portion of the Bible or sing a hymn." (Mormon Guide to Self-Control)

How many portions of the Bible and hymns do you know before you "loosen up?

Im sorry, but reciting bible versus would be the best hormone killer outside of seeing Tammy Fae Baker in a bikini