Masturbation

[Quasicentennial]

Masturbation releases build-up of sexual feelings, and it also is a sign that the food eaten contains plenty of vitamins, carbohydrates and antioxidants from dairy, meat, fruit and vegetables. God combined masturbation and lust for sex between Adam and Eve until Satan told them to eat the fruit so that knowledge can extend love to self-love (masturbation) and omni-love (loving others). These two sinful pleasures can waste time of one's life.

 

[freeport]

This sounds very interesting. I always wandered if lust is only just a simple sexual thought or getting aroused from seeing something or someone that looks sexy.

I wonder if any Gnostic beliefs have seeped into Christianity.

Different people define words differently... and we use semantical context to imply what we mean when we use a word. It is important to stay within context.

I checked what she was saying and saw the dictionary definition *is* "obsessive sexual desire", though the root simply means "desire" or points to it.

Regardless, contextually, we do use it as simple sexual desire in some contexts and as obsessive sexual desire in others.


I can understand where someone might have been deep in that sin themselves, or had that imposed upon them... that isn't where I come from, though.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Masturbation releases build-up of sexual feelings, and it also is a sign that the food eaten contains plenty of vitamins, carbohydrates and antioxidants from dairy, meat, fruit and vegetables. God combined masturbation and lust for sex between Adam and Eve until Satan told them to eat the fruit so that knowledge can extend love to self-love (masturbation) and omni-love (loving others). These two sinful pleasures can waste time of one's life.

I have no idea what you're talking about dude. State your sources, please.

 

[freeport]

<snip>
The sin of Onan was originally Onan fulfilling his marital duties by impregnating his brother's wife. He just withdrew his genitals from his new wife 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] on the floor or ground. No masturbation was mentioned. This is in Genesis 38 I believe.

Therefore, I don't believe that masturbation by itself is not sinful towards God.

Agreed... I am surprised people would apply masturbation to that...

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I'm glad to see that another Christian understands that.

 

[student ad x]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved from Christian Advice.
Thank you for your patience. Carry on.....

MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[epistemaniac]

I know it is clear in the Bible that all sexual immorality is wrong and sinful. I also know that masturbation is an act that only promotes sexually immoral thought. But recently there has been a lot of research over masturbation, and it has many supposed health benefits for men and women who touch. I was wondering if these claims were true to be scientific fact. If they are, why would God refrain us from something that would be beneficial to our health? If they are not true, are these health professionals claiming a simple correlation rather than a hard fact? Are the health benefits of masturbation minimal?

even if there were health benefits, if the bible forbids it in principle, it is still wrong... so he ends do not justify the means...

secondly, we have to always know what the motivation and the worldview of the people doing the research is... as is sometimes the case with homosexuality, many of the researchers who try to justify homosexualuty for whatever reason, do so because they themselves are homosexuals and (sometimes desperately) want to find ways to justify the behavior as being a legitimate alternative lifestyle because it is genetic or whatever.... so their methodology is suspect form the beginning... so too I wonder if those who are claiming such benefits are just themselves people who are seeking to justify the behavior.

thirdly even if there were health benefits, God would have the wisdom to have us refrain from the practice if He knew that whatever health benefits that there were (granting for the moment that the research is valid and that there are in fact benefits), these benefits do not outweigh the psychological and spiritual harm that comes from masturbating, as it cheapens the sex act, as sexual intercourse was designed by God to be between a husband and a wife, and masturbation most often involves fantasizing about a person that is not one's spouse. This of course is in violation of Matthew 5:27 - 29 (ESV) 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell."
It seems that it is also wrong in that masturbation involves fantasizing about engaging in sexual activity with a specific person without that person's permission. So it seems to violate that person's rights in some way as well, as one would expect that many men and women would object to the knowledge that a person was masturbating while fantasizing about them, and would thus feel defiled.


blessings,
ken

 

[Johnnz]

The assumptions in your post should not be taken as fact.

The Bible does not forbid it in principle, any more than it forbids oral sex, mutual masturbation or other variations that a couple can enjoy together. A person may chose not too out of their own convictions and that's fine, but does not turn it into biblical principle.

Non Christian worldviews? Sure we need to be aware of them. But many Christians have pretty inadequate worldviews too. For example, is a life saving surgical procedure only valid if done by a Christian? Or does the law of gravity apply differently? Or is there a common pool of facts that are equally valid for Christians and those who aren't.

Sexual fulfilment does belong to good sex within a good marriage. I don't know of anyone who sees masturbation as being less than full intercourse. But that does not necessarily make it wrong if a sexual partner is unavailable. Should a married person never touch if separated for a time from their partner? Or wjat about sex ina loveless marraige. Isn't that just mutual masturbation?

And of course those terrible verses in Matthew, amongst the most misquoted and misunderstood verses in Scripture. The very minimum basis for understanding that verse in its traditional way is first to have a clear distinction of what constitutes normal sexuality as opposed to unholy desires.

John
NZ

 

[CShephard53]

even if there were health benefits, if the bible forbids it in principle, it is still wrong... so he ends do not justify the means...

secondly, we have to always know what the motivation and the worldview of the people doing the research is... as is sometimes the case with homosexuality, many of the researchers who try to justify homosexualuty for whatever reason, do so because they themselves are homosexuals and (sometimes desperately) want to find ways to justify the behavior as being a legitimate alternative lifestyle because it is genetic or whatever.... so their methodology is suspect form the beginning... so too I wonder if those who are claiming such benefits are just themselves people who are seeking to justify the behavior.

thirdly even if there were health benefits, God would have the wisdom to have us refrain from the practice if He knew that whatever health benefits that there were (granting for the moment that the research is valid and that there are in fact benefits), these benefits do not outweigh the psychological and spiritual harm that comes from masturbating, as it cheapens the sex act, as sexual intercourse was designed by God to be between a husband and a wife, and masturbation most often involves fantasizing about a person that is not one's spouse. This of course is in violation of Matthew 5:27 - 29 (ESV) 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell."
It seems that it is also wrong in that masturbation involves fantasizing about engaging in sexual activity with a specific person without that person's permission. So it seems to violate that person's rights in some way as well, as one would expect that many men and women would object to the knowledge that a person was masturbating while fantasizing about them, and would thus feel defiled.


blessings,
ken

Ken, what is lust?

 

[chingchang]

This topic has been discussed ad-naseum on CF for years. In my strong opinion...there are those that would put others in bondage to their legalism...which at best results from bad teaching and bad interpretation. If masturbation was a sexual sin...the Bible would say so...because humans have likely been masturbating since the beginning. There are several places in the Bible where it could have been listed...but Leviticus 18 would make the most sense. It does not appear there. If masturbation is not listed anywhere in the Bible as a sin...then the practice falls under Paul's instruction in Romans 14. If you enjoy it with a clear conscious...then do it...even thank God for it. If you can't do it with a clear conscious then you are sinning.

Done.

CC

 

[Johnnz]

I agree. But for many they have been told it is wrong. Consequently we get regular questions on CF, as a person cannot have a clear conscience if they have a pre-existing belief for which they have no other basis to challenge. So, we get a for and against debate ad infinitum, much of which seems to bypass Paul's teaching in Romans 14.

John
NZ

 

[dayhiker]

I think the scientific claims are accurate. They are sure more accurate than the comments I heard when I was young. Like it would grow hair on the palms of my hands!
Personally I'd say its been one of the blessings of God in my life. I often thank God for masturbation. So I'd say that my personal experience conforms the scientific findings.

Now if one feels guilt about masturbation then that guilt can cause some negative issues so I'd go along with what Paul says about if one believes something to be sin then for them it is.

dayhiker

recently there has been a lot of research over masturbation, and it has many supposed health benefits for men and women who touch. I was wondering if these claims were true to be scientific fact.

 

[wayseer]

Does it matter? Really - what's the problem?

 

[epistemaniac]

Ken, what is lust?

Lust
2121 [FONT=&quot]&#7952;[/FONT]&#960;&#953;&#952;&#965;&#956;&#941;&#969; (epithyme&#333: vb.; &#8801; Str 1937; TDNT 3.168—1. LN 25.12 desire greatly, long for, desire (Mt 13:17; Lk 15:16; 16:21; 17:22; 22:15; 1Ti 3:1; Heb 6:11; 1Pe 1:12; Rev 9:6+); 2. LN 25.20 lust, covet, an evil desire (Mt 5:28; Ac 20:33; Ro 7:7; 13:9; 1Co 10:6; Gal 5:17; Jas 4:2+) (Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (DBLG 2121, #2).)

Lust
Usage Number: A-1
Part Of Speech: Noun
Strong's Number: <G1939>
Original Word: [FONT=&quot]&#7952;[/FONT]&#960;&#953;&#952;&#965;&#956;[FONT=&quot]&#8055;[/FONT]&#945;, epithymia
Usage Notes: denotes "strong desire" of any kind, the various kinds being frequently specified by some adjective (see below). The word is used of a good desire only in Luke 22:15; Phil. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:17. Everywhere else it has a bad sense. In Rom. 6:12 the injunction against letting sin reign in our mortal body to obey the "lust" thereof, refers to those evil desires which are ready to express themselves in bodily activity. They are equally the "lusts" of the flesh, Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:16, 24; Eph. 2:3; 2 Pet. 2:18; 1 John 2:16, a phrase which describes the emotions of the soul, the natural tendency towards things evil. Such "lusts" are not necessarily base and immoral, they may be refined in character, but are evil if inconsistent with the will of God.
Other descriptions besides those already mentioned are: "of the mind," Eph. 2:3; "evil (desire)," Col. 3:5; "the passion of," 1 Thess. 4:5, RV; "foolish and hurtful," 1 Tim. 6:9; "youthful," 2 Tim. 2:22; "divers," 2 Tim. 3:6; Titus 3:3; "their own," 2 Tim. 4:3; 2 Pet. 3:3; Jude 1:16; "worldly," Titus 2:12; "his own," Jas. 1:14; "your former," 1 Pet. 1:14, RV; "fleshly," 1 Pet. 2:11; "of men," 1 Pet. 4:2; "of defilement," 2 Pet. 2:10; "of the eyes," 1 John 2:16; of the world ("thereof"), 1 John 2:17; "their own ungodly," Jude 1:18. In Rev. 18:14 "(the fruits) which thy soul lusted after" is, lit., "of thy soul's lust." See DESIRE, A, No. 1 (where associated words are noted).

Usage Number: A-2
Part Of Speech: Noun
Strong's Number: <G3715>
Original Word: [FONT=&quot]&#8004;[/FONT]&#961;&#949;&#958;&#953;&#962;, orexis
Usage Notes: lit., "a reaching" or "stretching after" (akin to oregomai, "to stretch oneself out, reach after"), a general term for every kind of desire, is used in Rom. 1:27, "lust."

Usage Number: A-3
Part Of Speech: Noun
Strong's Number: <G2237>
Original Word: [FONT=&quot]&#7969;[/FONT]&#948;&#959;&#957;[FONT=&quot]&#8053;[/FONT], h&#275;don&#275;
Usage Notes: "pleasure," is translated "lusts," in the AV of Jas. 4:1, 3 (RV, "pleasure"). See PLEASURE.
Note: In 1 Thess. 4:5, AV, pathos, "passion" (RV, "passion"), is translated "lust," which is the better rendering of the next word epithymia, rendered "concupiscence." Pathos is described by Trench as "the diseased condition out of which epithymia springs." In 1 Cor. 12:6: epithym&#275;t&#275;s, a luster after, is rendered "to lust."

Usage Number: B-1
Part Of Speech: Verb
Strong's Number: <G1937>
Original Word: [FONT=&quot]&#7952;[/FONT]&#960;&#953;&#952;&#965;&#956;[FONT=&quot]&#8051;[/FONT]&#969;, epithyme&#333;
Usage Notes: akin to A, No. 1, has the same twofold meaning as the noun, namely (a) "to desire," used of the Holy Spirit against the flesh, Gal. 5:17 (see below); of the Lord Jesus, Luke 22:15, "I have desired;" of the holy angels, 1 Pet. 1:12; of good men, for good things, Matt. 13:17; 1 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 6:11; of men, for things without moral quality, Luke 15:16; Luke 16:21; Luke 17:22; Rev. 9:6; (b) of "evil desires," in respect of which it is translated "to lust" in Matt. 5:28; 1 Cor. 10:6; Gal. 5:17 (1st part; see below); Jas. 4:2; to covet, Acts 20:23; Rom. 7:7; Rom. 13:9. See COVET, DESIRE, B, No. 2.
Notes: (1) In Gal. 5:17, in the statement, "the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh," the Holy Spirit is intended, as in the preceding verse. To walk by the Spirit involves the opposition here referred to. The verb "lusteth" is not repeated in the second part of the statement, but must in some way be supplied. Since in modern English the word "lust" is used exclusively in a bad sense, it is unsuitable as a translation of epithyme&#333;, where the word is used in a good sense. As the rendering "desire" is used of the Lord Jesus (as mentioned above), it may be best so understood here in respect of the Holy Spirit.
(2) In James 4:5 the RV translates correctly in giving two questions, each of a rhetorical character, asked by way of remonstrance. The first draws attention to the fact that it is impossible for the Scripture to speak in vain; the second to the impossibility that the Holy Spirit, whom God has caused to dwell in the believer, should "long (unto envying)," epipothe&#333; (AV, "lust"). Here again, not the human spirit is in view, but the Spirit of God; cp. 1 Cor. 6:19. See LONG.
—Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

“LUST
Contents:
1. The Old Testament Use
2. The New Testament Use
LUST
(5 Hebrew and 5 Greek words are so rendered, namely: (1) &#8207;&#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473;&#8206;, nephesh, (2) &#8207;&#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468;&#1514;&#8206;, sher&#299;r&#363;th, (3) &#8207;&#1514;&#1468;&#1463;&#1488;&#1458;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492;&#8206;, ta&#702;&#259;w&#257;h, (4) &#8207;&#1495;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1491;&#8206;, h&#803;&#257;madh, (5) &#8207;&#1488;&#1464;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492;&#8206;, &#257;w&#257;h; (1) [FONT=&quot]&#7952;[/FONT]&#960;&#953;&#952;&#957;&#956;[FONT=&quot]&#8055;[/FONT]&#945;, epithumía, (2) [FONT=&quot]&#7969;[/FONT]&#948;&#959;&#957;[FONT=&quot]&#8053;[/FONT], h&#275;done&#769;, (3) [FONT=&quot]&#7952;[/FONT]&#960;&#953;&#960;&#959;&#952;[FONT=&quot]&#8051;[/FONT]&#969;, epipothé&#333;, (4) [FONT=&quot]&#8004;[/FONT]&#961;&#949;&#958;&#953;&#962;, órexis, (5) &#960;[FONT=&quot]&#8049;[/FONT]&#952;&#959;&#962;, páthos): The word both as verb and as substantive has a good and a bad meaning. It probably meant at first a strong desire, a craving, abnormal appetite, not only for physical but for spiritual satisfaction. It has come, however, to be confined in its use almost entirely to the bad sense. Some old translations are not accepted now, the word being used in connections which at present seem almost irreverent. Shades of meaning are learned from an examination of the Hebrew and Greek originals.


1. The Old Testament Use:
The substantive and verbs are: (1) Nephesh, in Exodus 15:9 and Psalm 78:18 translated "desire"; "My desire shall be satisfied"; "by asking food according to their desire." A strong but not sensual sense. (2) Sher&#299;r&#363;th, meaning "obstinacy," evil imagination. Yahweh said (Psalm 81:12), "I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart," a willful self-satisfaction. (3) Ta&#259;w&#257;h, "a delight" "a longing satisfaction," and so it came to mean "sinful pleasure." Translated in Psalm 78:30, "that which they desired," intensely longed for, referring to Yahweh's provision of food in the wilderness. Also in Numbers 11:4 concerning "flesh to eat" it is said the multitude "lusted exceedingly" i.e. "craved eagerly. (4) H&#803;&#257;madh, the verb meaning "to delight in," "greatly belove," "covet," probably for evil purposes. The young man is warned against the evil woman (Proverbs 6:25): "Lust not after her beauty." Here the bad sense is evident, for in the same connection are used such expressions as "harlot," "adulteress," "evil woman." (5) &#256;w&#257;h, meaning "greatly to desire," long after, with undue emphasis, with evil spirit though not perhaps with impure thought. In Numbers 11:34 reference is made to a place called k&#803;ibhr&#333;th ha-ta&#259;w&#257;h, "the graves of lust, where "they buried the people that lusted." Psalm 106:14 also refers to the Israelites who "lusted exceedingly." Translated in Deut. 12:15, 21 "desire of thy soul"; Deut. 12:20; Deut. 14:26, "thy soul desireth." These Deuteronomy passages evidently mean lust only in the good sense.
2. The New Testament Use:
As in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament we find both meanings of the word. (1) Epithumia is used most frequently, and means a longing for the unlawful, hence, concupiscence, desire, lust. The following references hold the idea, not only of sinful desire known as "fleshly," "worldly," as opposed to "spiritual" "heavenly," "the will of man" as opposed to "the will of God," but also the sensual desire connected with adultery, fornication; verb in Matthew 5:28; Mark 4:19; John 8:44; Romans 1:24; 1 Cor. 10:6; Galatians 5:16-17, 24; Titus 2:12; 1 Peter 1:14; 1 John 2:16f; Jude 1:16-18; Rev. 18:14. (2) H&#275;don&#275;, delight in sensuality, hence, wicked pleasures; translated in James 4:1, 3 "pleasures": "Your pleasures that war in your members"; "Ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures" (the King James Version "lust"). (3) Epipothe&#333; means to crave intensely the wrong possession; translated in James 4:5 "long (the King James Version "lusteth") unto envying." (4) Orexis, used in Romans 1:27, from context evidently meaning "lust" in the worst sense; translated "lust." (5) Pathos, meaning "passion" inordinate affection, with the idea in it of suffering; translated in 1 Thes. 4:5 "passion of lust."
—William Edward Raffety, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

cont

 

[epistemaniac]

Ken, what is lust?

Some examples of how the word "lust", "lusts", etc are used in the Scripture:

&#8220;(b) On Adultery (Matt.5:27&#8211;30). 5:27&#8211;28 Jesus moves on from the Sixth to the Seventh Commandment (Exod 20:14). &#8220;Adultery&#8221; usually referred to sexual relations by a married person with a partner other than his or her spouse, but v. 28 makes clear that Jesus is not limiting his commandments to married people but speaking of sexual sin in general. The grammar of v. 28a leads to two possible translations. Jesus could be speaking of one who &#8220;looks at a woman with the intention of committing adultery&#8221; or to one who &#8220;looks at a woman for the purpose of getting her to lust after him.&#8221; Either way, the present tense participle blep&#333;n refers to one who continues to look rather than just casting a passing glance, and in either case the mere viewing or mental imagining of a naked body is not under consideration. Instead Jesus is condemning lustful thoughts and actions&#8212; those involving an actual desire (the most literal translation of the verb epithyme&#333 to have sexual relations with someone other than one&#8217;s spouse. Yet despite the danger of overapplying this verse, an even greater danger is that of underapplying it. Adultery among Christians today is a scandal, yet it almost never occurs without precipitation. Christians must recognize those thoughts and actions which, long before any overt sexual sin, make the possibility of giving in to temptation more likely, and they must take dramatic action to avoid them.&#8212;Matthew; New American Commentary

&#8220;It ought to be understood that what is thus said of a man (&#960;[FONT=&quot]&#8118;[/FONT]&#962; [FONT=&quot]&#8001;[/FONT], masculine) is equally true of a woman. Likewise, "every man" is general and cannot be restricted to married men; and &#947;&#965;&#957;&#945;[FONT=&quot]&#8150;[/FONT]&#954;&#945; cannot refer only to a married woman who belongs to another man. A bachelor's lustful look upon a maid is certainly as adulterous as the lustful look of a married man upon another man's wife. To introduce a man's look upon his own wife is specious, for adultery between these two is excluded, 1 Cor 7:9. Jesus uses [FONT=&quot]&#7952;[/FONT]&#956;&#959;[FONT=&quot]&#8055;[/FONT]&#967;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#949;&#957; to match the &#956;&#959;&#953;&#967;&#949;[FONT=&quot]&#8059;[/FONT]&#963;&#949;&#953;&#962; of the commandment, and both are to be understood in the broad sense, adultery including the more specific fornication. What the Sixth Commandment calls for is a pure heart which keeps even the eyes pure. On this the scribes and Pharisees had no instruction to offer. Such a pure heart is the product of regenerating and sanctifying grace alone.&#8212;Lenski New Testament Commentary

Re 1 Thess. 4:5: &#8220;A contrast to sanctified and honorable behavior is provided in v. 5 and helps clarify Paul's meaning. The opposite of holy, honorable living is the exercise of &#8220;passionate lust,&#8221; in the manner of the Gentiles &#8220;who do not know God.&#8221; In the Greek phrase &#8220;lust&#8221; (epithymias) modifies &#8220;passion&#8221; (pathei). Ungodly, lustful passions should not dictate Christian actions. The word translated &#8220;passionate&#8221; had a different connotation to the ancient Greeks from the one it has today. It was a word much used in ethical discussions and referred to strong emotions, sexual and otherwise. Paul consistently used the word in the negative sense of strong sexual urges contrary to the will of God (Rom 1:26; Col 3:5). Paul commonly (though not always, see 1 Thess 2:17) used &#8220;lust&#8221; to depict a strong ungodly sexual desire also. The combination pathei epithymias with the preposition ev warned believers that the will of God, not an unbridled libido, should dictate their actions. For &#8220;those who belong to Jesus Christ have crucified the sinful nature with its passions [pathmasin] and desires [epithymiais]&#8221; (Gal 5:24). On the other hand, Paul never argued that sexual desire itself is evil. The goal for Paul was not the destruction of physical desire but the sanctifying of it.
&#8212;New American Commentary

James 1:14 Just as arresting as the objection of v. 13 is the absence of a reference to Satan in the following verses. Instead of a demonic influence, one&#8217;s own &#8220;evil desire,&#8221; or &#8220;deformed desire,&#8221;69&#8212; (ftnote 69: There is no word for &#8220;evil&#8221; in the text but rather [FONT=&quot]&#7952;[/FONT]&#960;&#953;&#952;&#965;&#956;[FONT=&quot]&#8055;[/FONT]&#945;, &#8220;desire,&#8221; or &#8220;strong desire.&#8221; The term can have a neutral sense (cf. Luke 22:15; Phil 1:23; 1 Thess 2:17). But because its meaning is so connected with the appetites of the body, particularly of sexuality, it readily expresses itself in lust when its object is a forbidden one. This negative sense of &#8220;desire&#8221; appears more frequently in the NT than the neutral one (cf. Mark 4:19; Rom 1:24; 6:12; 13:14; Gal 5:24; Col 3:5; 1 Tim 6:9; 2 Tim 3:6; 4:3; 1 Pet 1:14; 2 Pet 2:10; 1 John 2:16&#8211;17; Jude 18). &#8212;New American Commentary

Re 1 Jn 2:&#8220;16. For everything in the world&#8212;the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does&#8212;comes not from the Father but from the world.
The main thought of verse 16 is this: "everything in the world... comes not from the Father but from the world." In his epistle, James provides a parallel idea. On the origin of wisdom, James writes, "Such 'wisdom' does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil" (James 3:15). That which has its origin in the world comes not from God but from the devil.
What are the so-called things of the world? John spells them out in three categories: cravings of sinful man, lust of man's eyes, and boasting of what a person has or does. Of course, this list of tendencies is comprehensive in scope, but not necessarily exhaustive.
Before we discuss these categories, we make the following observations. The first two categories (cravings and lust) are sinful desires; the last (boasting) is sinful behavior. The first two are internal and hidden sins; the last is an external and revealed sin. The first two pertain to the individual person, the last to the person who is surrounded by people.
a. Cravings. Literally the Greek text has "the desire of the flesh." The New International Version, however, translates the text as "the cravings of sinful man." The word desire is used collectively and represents cravings that include sexual desire and covetousness. These cravings are evil because they cause man to disobey God's explicit command, "You shall not covet" (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). Moreover, these cravings originate in man's nature and give birth to sin (James 1:15). Paul writes a similar account of this sinful nature (Gal. 5:16-17), which he says "is contrary to the Spirit."
b. Lust. John describes this desire as "the lust of [the] eyes." The eyes are the channels to man's soul. When man is enticed by lust, his eyes serve as instruments that cause him to transgress and sin. John reflects the sentiments of Jesus (recorded in the Sermon on the Mount), who categorized lustful looking as sin: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:28).
&#8212;Baker New Testament Commentary

Is that helpful?

Blessings,
ken

 

[epistemaniac]

The assumptions in your post should not be taken as fact.

The Bible does not forbid it in principle, any more than it forbids oral sex, mutual masturbation or other variations that a couple can enjoy together. A person may chose not too out of their own convictions and that's fine, but does not turn it into biblical principle.

Non Christian worldviews? Sure we need to be aware of them. But many Christians have pretty inadequate worldviews too. For example, is a life saving surgical procedure only valid if done by a Christian? Or does the law of gravity apply differently? Or is there a common pool of facts that are equally valid for Christians and those who aren't.

Sexual fulfilment does belong to good sex within a good marriage. I don't know of anyone who sees masturbation as being less than full intercourse. But that does not necessarily make it wrong if a sexual partner is unavailable. Should a married person never touch if separated for a time from their partner? Or wjat about sex ina loveless marraige. Isn't that just mutual masturbation?

And of course those terrible verses in Matthew, amongst the most misquoted and misunderstood verses in Scripture. The very minimum basis for understanding that verse in its traditional way is first to have a clear distinction of what constitutes normal sexuality as opposed to unholy desires.

John
NZ

The assumptions in your post should not be taken as fact.

blessings,
ken

 

[cowboysfan1970]

Some examples of how the word "lust", "lusts", etc are used in the Scripture:

Re 1 Jn 2:“16. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.
The main thought of verse 16 is this: "everything in the world... comes not from the Father but from the world." In his epistle, James provides a parallel idea. On the origin of wisdom, James writes, "Such 'wisdom' does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil" (James 3:15). That which has its origin in the world comes not from God but from the devil.
What are the so-called things of the world? John spells them out in three categories: cravings of sinful man, lust of man's eyes, and boasting of what a person has or does. Of course, this list of tendencies is comprehensive in scope, but not necessarily exhaustive.
Before we discuss these categories, we make the following observations. The first two categories (cravings and lust) are sinful desires; the last (boasting) is sinful behavior. The first two are internal and hidden sins; the last is an external and revealed sin. The first two pertain to the individual person, the last to the person who is surrounded by people.
a. Cravings. Literally the Greek text has "the desire of the flesh." The New International Version, however, translates the text as "the cravings of sinful man." The word desire is used collectively and represents cravings that include sexual desire and covetousness. These cravings are evil because they cause man to disobey God's explicit command, "You shall not covet" (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). Moreover, these cravings originate in man's nature and give birth to sin (James 1:15). Paul writes a similar account of this sinful nature (Gal. 5:16-17), which he says "is contrary to the Spirit."
b. Lust. John describes this desire as "the lust of [the] eyes." The eyes are the channels to man's soul. When man is enticed by lust, his eyes serve as instruments that cause him to transgress and sin. John reflects the sentiments of Jesus (recorded in the Sermon on the Mount), who categorized lustful looking as sin: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:28).
—Baker New Testament Commentary

Is that helpful?

Blessings,
ken

That one can be very tricky. People have taken that verse in 1 John, have made it very broad, and used it to justify some very extreme or anti-sexual theology. Believe me, I know it well.

I've heard people say that one of the problems with today's conservative evangelical churches and their members (especially the young ones) is that they have greatly expanded the definition of lust and have taken a somewhat Victorian attitude towards anything sexual. It's not just today's churches because it was going on 20 - 30 years ago so it's not a recent trend. What is your personal definition of lust? At what point do you think it begins?

 

[Kencj]

This is a great discussion! I wish I knew when I was younger what I know now about the subject, it would have saved me a lot of needless pain and guilt

If anyone wants to know the origin of our culture's attitudes toward masturbation (as well as the broader relationship between religion and science about sexual morality) the best book is Thomas Laquer's brilliant 'Solitary Sex; a Cultural History of Masturbation'. He examines exhaustively how it was seen throughout western religious history, shows how it wasn&#8217;t a big deal originally and explains how it became "The Heinous Sin of Onanism" in the 18th century.

Thanks to a tract selling a &#8220;strengthening tincture&#8221; that appeared at the time and caused a sensation, masturbation began to be blamed for an enormous number of diseases, chronic conditions, insanity and even death, not by religion but by the medical community. It was the perfect scapegoat since nearly everyone did it but hardly anyone wanted to admit it unless questioned. The attitude still haunts our culture and, sadly, religious conservatism hangs on to it to this day as it hangs on to many false prejudices from the past that are based on disproven &#8220;science&#8221; and not the teachings of Christ.

 

[CShephard53]

Is that helpful?

Blessings,
ken

No, your copy paste ruitine wasn't helpful at all. I want to know what YOU think it means, not what a bunch of commentaries say. I can copy paste too, and I'd be willing to bet that my copy paste and subsequent explanation would refute how you use it in the post I asked you about.
So, let me ask you again: What is lust?

 

[Kencj]

Wait a minute, what difference does it make what our definitions are of a particular biblical term? A dictionary of current english is the last place a Christian should look for the meaning of such a frought word as "lust".
How the word was used and intended when it was written in the original greek 2000 years ago ought to be the concern

Epistemaniac is doing exactly what a serious Christian should do when dealing with any biblical term.