Masturbation

[RMDY]

But my question was intended to be the answer.
I wouldn't want to marry someone I didn't love just for the sex, would you?
Not that it hasn't happened plenty of times.

I think I answered it here by quoting Saint Paul and letting him speak for me.

Who said you would marry someone you didn't love? No one is telling you marry someone you don't love. What's wrong with exerting self-control?

"You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." (1 Cor 6:19-20)



"If they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
(1Co 7:9).

 

[Kencj]

Who said you would marry someone you didn't love? No one is telling you marry someone you don't love. What's wrong with exerting self-control?

Well, you did.
You said, quoting Paul (sort of) "- If people burn with passion, they should marry." And I asked, would you marry someone you didn't love just for the sex? Which you still haven't answered.

 

[RMDY]

Well, you did.
You said, quoting Paul (sort of) "- If people burn with passion, they should marry." And I asked, would you marry someone you didn't love just for the sex? Which you still haven't answered.

How does 'should marry' literally tell people to marry people they don't love?


Maybe I am not as intelligent as you, but I do not see Paul telling anyone to marry people they love or don't love. The text literally says, according to my unintelligent mind that people 'should marry'. How does a 'should' become a "'you did' command to marry people you don't love'"?

 

[RMDY]

Anyway, Godschild, perhaps you may not lust when masterbating. I'm going to take a page from your view and reckon that maybe it is harmless 'entertainment', as you would put it I think.

But what about the point that you don't own your body and it's God's temple. What if you are to not use your body for that kind of 'entertainment' but to glorify God with it and exert self-control. What if touching yourself is a form of defilement on your part? Perhaps you are defiling God's holy temple entertaining yourself with such a practice and taking the Lord of your life off of your throne and doing your will and not His?

Maybe God has set us apart to be sanctified to him, honoring him with our bodies as a form of worship. It's plausible, don't you think? (1 Thessalonians 4:3, Romans 12:1)

"You are not your own, for you were bought with a price."(1 Corinthians 6:20)

 

[david_x]

Health, entertainment all they can defend it with is superficiality? Better to practice discipline then be driven by corruption.

 

[RMDY]

Health, entertainment all they can defend it with is superficiality? Better to practice discipline then be driven by corruption.

A good example would be Yoga. I have heard that it is healthy for you and good for your body, yet it is undermining for the christian, because it is heathen in origin and is a form of hindu worship, packaged as a health benefit---something that seems so innocent and trivial...

 

[david_x]

A good example would be Yoga. I have heard that it is healthy for you and good for your body, yet it is undermining for the christian, because it is heathen in origin and is a form of hindu worship, packaged as a health benefit---something that seems so innocent and trivial...

Actually...

When Christians take something (for example rock music) and use it for the glory of God it is called plundering the temple. The Hebrews would often take false idols and other golden objects back to the temple of the Lord, this is carried on today when we make Christian rock or Christmas.

 

[Zebra1552]

Anyway, Godschild, perhaps you may not lust when masterbating. I'm going to take a page from your view and reckon that maybe it is harmless 'entertainment', as you would put it I think.

I was using that as an illustration. The word 'entertainment' hardly fits all the aspects of it...

But what about the point that you don't own your body and it's God's temple. What if you are to not use your body for that kind of 'entertainment' but to glorify God with it and exert self-control. What if touching yourself is a form of defilement on your part? Perhaps you are defiling God's holy temple entertaining yourself with such a practice and taking the Lord of your life off of your throne and doing your will and not His?

Yeah, and what if you're teaching others to be under a 'yoke of slavery', the Law, but suggesting that it's wrong? Lust has been clearly defined several times thoughout this thread, according to a word study method rather than an emotional appeal, and it is that definition we should be going by.

Maybe God has set us apart to be sanctified to him, honoring him with our bodies as a form of worship. It's plausible, don't you think? (1 Thessalonians 4:3, Romans 12:1)


"You are not your own, for you were bought with a price."(1 Corinthians 6:20)

You are assuming that masturbation is dishonoring to God and isn't a form of worship. God gave us the ability, no? Is it really a stretch to say we're worshiping God by using the abilities He gave us?

 

[Zebra1552]

Health, entertainment all they can defend it with is superficiality? Better to practice discipline then be driven by corruption.

I've defended my position quite adequatly, and the main argument is that there is nothing in the Bible to condemn masturbation. It's not mentioned. Lust, as several have pointed out, is not merely 'wishful thinking' (lest I be sinning while reading LOTR or Ted Dekker), it is coveting, which requires intent, not just fantasy. So tell me again how it's superficial? I've not seen a cohesive logical argument fro why it is wrong to touch. If you think you can present one, please do.

 

[cowboysfan1970]

I'm not sure what you mean here.
Could you explain it please?
Are you arguing that any sex is sinful unless it's for the specific purpose of procreation?

There was a time when I did believe that or something close to it because that's what I had always thought was right and true. I grew up with a very strict belief system that was hostile towards sexuality. I actually felt like a pervert for having sexual desires. Whenever I would feel any sort of sexual attraction to a girl or woman I felt profoundly guilty and was very disgusted with myself. To this day it's something that I have to fight against. I was using that quote as an example because people will take things like that out of context and apply very strict and rigid theology to it. They would quote scriptures that delt with self-control, self-denial, rejecting things of the world, etc, and create a very strong anti sexual belief system that was based in guilt, shame, fear, and sin. What people do is they wrap it up in a cloak of righteousness and make it very believeable. That's why I've questioned david's ideas of what lust is because he seems to have a very broad and legalistic definition of the word.

 

[cowboysfan1970]

I don't. What we have here is a bias formed by years of paranoid defense...

I'm not sure what you mean by that but you do seem to have a very hostile and legalistic idea of what lust is and towards sexuality in general. You seem to base your ideas not on scripture but on your own personal feelings. Then you try to turn those feelings into law and expect everyone else to have the same level of dedication to them as you do, and if they don't then they are "wrong." I've heard all of this before, mainly pushed and promoted by sour old "church lady" types that are terribly afraid that somewhere somebody is having a good time and they are going to put a stop to that right away.

 

[cowboysfan1970]

"Stop depriving one another."
- Saint Paul (1 Cor 7:5)

There's a loop hole here that the procreationist crowd uses to support their doctrines and those are the last two words of that verse - self control. They believe that self-control is the first priority. If a husband and wife are having relations with no intent to make a baby then they aren't practicing self control. They are "being lustful" (a word that's been used a lot here), and acting like the heathens or common, base animals that can't control themselves and are slaves to their lower passions. My point is that they will apply the same arguement towards touching yourself or basically any form of sexual desires. I see the same arguements being used here. The problem is that they have a fatal flaw in their logic and it took me years to figure it out. If you take that type of logic to its rational conclusion we are to be completely asexual before we are married and then experience sexual desire only when it's time for the woman to conceive. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that just doesn't add up. I've learned and observed that the people who are passionately against touching yourself usually have a very negative and legalistic attitude towards sex also.

 

[david_x]

I've defended my position quite adequatly, and the main argument is that there is nothing in the Bible to condemn masturbation. It's not mentioned. Lust, as several have pointed out, is not merely 'wishful thinking' (lest I be sinning while reading LOTR or Ted Dekker), it is coveting, which requires intent, not just fantasy. So tell me again how it's superficial? I've not seen a cohesive logical argument fro why it is wrong to touch. If you think you can present one, please do.

Rofl, as I explained to 'insert name i can't remember' I obviously meant the negative wishful thinking. Your arguments have been about physical/ chemical, or if you would like to defend a weak point it's 'not in the Bible' like that means it can't be wrong.

 

[david_x]

I'm not sure what you mean by that but you do seem to have a very hostile and legalistic idea of what lust is and towards sexuality in general. You seem to base your ideas not on scripture but on your own personal feelings. Then you try to turn those feelings into law and expect everyone else to have the same level of dedication to them as you do, and if they don't then they are "wrong." I've heard all of this before, mainly pushed and promoted by sour old "church lady" types that are terribly afraid that somewhere somebody is having a good time and they are going to put a stop to that right away.

Again, not sure who these feeling are meant for but you got the wrong old church lady. (And for the record I love all the old Church ladies.)

 

[noroses4u2c]

Love is a choice though, not a feeling. If a man and woman choose to care and love each other, even for lack of physical attraction, the marriage should still last so long they both really love each other and commit to each other.

That's what my idealistic thinking, influenced by Paul, says anyway.

 

[Zebra1552]

Rofl, as I explained to 'insert name i can't remember' I obviously meant the negative wishful thinking.

...whatever the heck that means. Again, vague.

Your arguments have been about physical/ chemical, or if you would like to defend a weak point it's 'not in the Bible' like that means it can't be wrong.

It's not a weak point. The entire position against masturbation is based in the Bible, and if there is nothing in there that talks about anything connected to it, there is therefore no position to say that it is wrong, not from a biblical standpoint. The point is quite strong. I daresay I've been around this issue enough to know what works and what doesn't as an argument.

 

[RMDY]

There's a loop hole here that the procreationist crowd uses to support their doctrines and those are the last two words of that verse - self control. They believe that self-control is the first priority. If a husband and wife are having relations with no intent to make a baby then they aren't practicing self control. They are "being lustful" (a word that's been used a lot here), and acting like the heathens or common, base animals that can't control themselves and are slaves to their lower passions. My point is that they will apply the same arguement towards touching yourself or basically any form of sexual desires. I see the same arguements being used here. The problem is that they have a fatal flaw in their logic and it took me years to figure it out. If you take that type of logic to its rational conclusion we are to be completely asexual before we are married and then experience sexual desire only when it's time for the woman to conceive. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that just doesn't add up. I've learned and observed that the people who are passionately against touching yourself usually have a very negative and legalistic attitude towards sex also.

I should have clarified my position more clearly, but I assumed you knew it since I kept saying "stop depriving one another" (1 Cor 7:5) when it comes to sex within marriage.

When I asked "what's wrong with exerting self-control?" I was talking about those who are not married, those people who have not been forced to marry people they do not love and those who have not married people they do love. For the single man or women, I was asking "what is wrong with exerting self-control". I should have clarified my position. I thought, maybe assumed, you knew it already concerning sex within marriage.

I'm not a pro-creationist only for marriages, since Saint Paul once said to "stop depriving one another, lest Satan tempts you," as being a non pro-creationist message to have sex within marriage.

 

[RMDY]

Yeah, and what if you're teaching others to be under a 'yoke of slavery', the Law

So then why Saint Paul say "you were called to freedom...only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh."(Galations 5:13)

You are assuming that masturbation is dishonoring to God

touching yourself is of the flesh, is it not?

 

[Kencj]

How does 'should marry' literally tell people to marry people they don't love?

Because the quote you gave made no mention of love, only if they can't control themselves they should marry
.
I'm not trying to be smart, but it seems to me that you're offering people a "solution" that you're exempting yourself from. You'd asked my opinion of Paul's words and he makes no mention of love. So would you recommend people who aren't in love yet lack self-control be married for the sole purpose of having sex? It just sounds like it's something you wouldn't do yourself, yet you seem to be recommending to others based on Paul's words.

 

[Kencj]

...if you would like to defend a weak point it's 'not in the Bible' like that means it can't be wrong.

OK, here's another statement that's kind of astounding.
If as a Christian you're going to condemn a certain behavior to be immoral, do you really expect others to believe it's wrong simply because you say so, yet the entire Bible says nothing about it?

Way too many "religious leaders" have gotten away with just that.