Masturbation

[dayhiker]

I'm curious as to where the Bible says masturbation is abusing God's creation. I've not come accross that verse.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

it is a sin
and you do need lust for it

sex is a special thing that God created, it is a marvelous thing and masturbation and any sexual sin is basically corrupting or abusing God's creation of sex
it is a sin, even though people would like it not to be

 

[CShephard53]

2 Timothy 4:3-4

it is a sin
and you do need lust for it

sex is a special thing that God created, it is a marvelous thing and masturbation and any sexual sin is basically corrupting or abusing God's creation of sex
it is a sin, even though people would like it not to be

Oh? Do explain.

 

[CShephard53]

If you are already "quite sure of what lust is, biblically", then why ask me what it is? As I said, I know baiting when I see it. All you really wanted to do, from the beginning, was to correct me where ever I differ from your own views. That’s fine, but why not just be honest about it?

I'm not baiting you. I've made that quite clear. I want to hear YOUR opinion. Good grief, are you that cynical that you can't have someone interested to hear a critical analysis?

Further, nothing I copy and pasted was from the internet. If the information would have been from the internet, I would have been more than glad to just furnish the links. Now who is doing the assuming?

You did copy paste, and that was my point: it was not original material.

At any rate, I have already made an argument for my opinion by researching the issue, reading numerous commentaries, reading numerous articles in dictionaries and lexicons. I provided those (if you chose not to read them that is your issue not mine) for you so that you would know why I posted my initial response in this thread so as to how I arrived at my understanding of the issue. In any case, I don't read minds, I don’t know the thoughts and intentions of your heart, and so the next time you simply and only you ask for a definition, and it must be pointed out you did not ask for my definition of the word, you asked for the definition of the word lust, look back again at your own words, then please don’t complain when you get exactly what you asked for. Anyways, in the future (at least in future discussions with me) I would deeply appreciate it if you would be more specific when you ask a question since you seem to be so particular about these issues, by outlining all the exact parameters as to where and from whom you will accept information from, and where you will not, so that when an answer is provided for you I can know ahead of time that it will "be up to snuff" enough for you. As it is, I answered your question as it was asked, quite directly, and all you have done since is complain about it.

I didn't ask what the Bible had to say about it. Use your critical thinking: if I had wanted a bunch of pasted material, I'd search Google or read my Christian Doctrine book or something. I quite clearly asked 'Ken, what is lust?' I was talking to YOU, I don't know how that's ambiguous.

And by saying this, I am not making things personal at all. You asked me the definition of a word, while all the while, knowing full well and being convinced in your mind that you are already "quite sure of what lust is, biblically". So why ask me a question you already knew the answer to begin with? You didn't really want what you asked for, which was simply an answer to your question: "what is the definition of lust?". What you really wanted is to try and show me why my understanding of the word is flawed when I responded to the earlier post in this thread, as your subsequent posts have proven.

Again, you are accusing me of baiting you. I've made my reasons for asking quite clear to you: I want critical thinking, not shallow pasting. If it's not clear enough, then just quit while you're behind.

And of course that is fine. This is a public forum and I expect to have people disagree with me and for me to disagree with them. If you really want to discuss the issue with me, don't be coy by asking me for "the" definition when what you really want to do is challenge my understanding of the word. Just be up front about what you really want to do, is all I am asking you for. That (feeling as if you were trying to 'set me up" or bait me from the outset, which is in the end exactly what you did) is probably the biggest reason I have been slightly less than gracious during this conversation.

Enough of this polical nonsense. Can you read? Did you read my last post?

"I don't much care what they have to say either. I'm already quite sure of what lust is, biblically. Like I said, I want to know what you think it means. Anyone can copy paste a bunch of literature and summarize it, and anyone can simply give their opinion. I want more than the mundane. I'm sick of the mundane. Mundane is boring. Make life interesting by making an argument for why you have your opinion, analyze things. Seriously, I'm sick of shallow posts. "

There is no reason for you to worry about making an *** out of you or me by putting words into my mouth. If you want to know why I believe what I believe about the definition of the word "lust" you have ample information to consult. Go to that information, interact with it, critique it according to your views if you like, but don't pretend the information isn't there.

I don't have any information. I have an opinion which dodges around the issue, a bunch of copied material, and a complaint that I'm asking you to think. None of this gives me YOUR critical analysis.

I would just add that it is neither my job nor my responsibility to entertain you. If you are tired of the mundane, that is really an issue you will have to come to terms with on your own, it’s simply not my problem, though I do have some suggestions to help you with this: namely to just remember that all around you, the people you speak to on the internet, the people you walk by on the street, are all made in the image of God. While quite simple, this is a very profound way of remembering that all those you interact with everyday are eternal beings made in the image of the loving Lord of all. And all of creation is under the providence of a holy and wise God. There is nothing mundane in all the world because of these things. May I suggest reading some CS Lewis? He may help restore the wonder of the “every day” to you and help you see that there is really nothing mundane about the unspeakable honor it is to be simply living and breathing and enjoying the company of God’s people and seeing the wonder of God’s creation. If you are bored then perhaps the reason is within you, and not without.

Yeah, it's my fault people don't know how to think critically. It's my fault Christians are falling left and right because of this. It's just my viewpoint, sure. I'm sick of shallow for far more reasons than just that it's boring. It's useless.

Earlier I said, in part:

So there is a lot more here than to just focus on coveting as “automatically imagining things”, and frankly your question "how exactly does coveting automatically involve imagining things?" fails to deal with the majority of my words in response to your earlier question. Why skip over all else that was said?
But as far “imagining things” goes, its really impossible not to, if one is coveting what does not belong to one’s self, for as soon as the mind imagines a scenario that has no basis in reality, one is “imagining things”. For instance to think “imagine me sitting behind the wheel of that Porsche” or “that guy’s wife (or daughter) is hot, I wish I had her, just think of the dancing we could do between the sheets” therefore, one is engaged in “imagining things” by simply coveting, desiring, longing after something or someone that belongs to someone else. To covet what someone else has is to suggest that what God has, in His divine wisdom and providence, given you, is somehow deficient in some way, and not good enough for you. So it is an insult to God to covet after persons or things that belong to someone else as if what God has given you is not enough, that you know better than God and what you think you should have…
cont

So when I'm hungry and go buy McDonalds or mooch off my housemates, I'm viewing God's grace as insufficient? Is that your idea of coveting as well? When I want something I'm faulting God?

 

[Zebra1552]

2 Timothy 4:3-4

it is a sin
and you do need lust for it

sex is a special thing that God created, it is a marvelous thing and masturbation and any sexual sin is basically corrupting or abusing God's creation of sex
it is a sin, even though people would like it not to be

Got evidence?

 

[CShephard53]

This is what the word “covet” means:
“[FONT=&quot]The application of the tenth commandment is determined by the exact meaning of the verb [/FONT]dmj
[FONT=&quot]. At base [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot]means “desire, yearn for, covet, lust after” someone or something, specifically for one’s own use or gratification. The question whether the verb may also suggest action as well as desire, particularly since the other nine commandments appear to command specific actions, has complicated the understanding of the tenth commandment. Herrmann ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Beiträge[/FONT][FONT=&quot], 69–72) and Nielsen (Ten Commandments, 101–5), for example, have taken the view that [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot]means both the desire and the scheming and actions impelled by it, an argument they sustain by reference to such passages as Exod 34:24; Deut 7:25; Josh 7:21; Mic 2:2; and Ps 68:17. Coates (ZAW 52 [1934] 238–39), Stoebe ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Wort und Dienst[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 3:108–15), and Moran (CBQ 29 [1967) 543–48), on the other hand, argue for the more subjective basic definition, on the grounds that there are ample examples of the prohibition in the ANE of such subjective longings and that such a definition better fits all the OT occurrences of [/FONT]dmj[FONT=&quot]Hyatt (Encounter 26 [1965] 204–6), listing parallels in Egyptian literature, suggested an “original form” of the tenth commandment that was an injunction against someone “in a position of authority” opening himself to bribery through “inordinate desire”; so this commandment was connected with the ninth commandment and “the integrity of the judicial system of the desert period.” A. Phillips (Criminal Law, 149–52) goes much farther in the same general direction with his argument that [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot]“desire” is a replacement for an original verb that referred to the seizure of the house (taken in its literal meaning) of the local elder, who would then, by the loss of his status as a property-owner, lose also his authority as a judge. Such a theory is made necessary by Phillips’s assumption (1–2 and passim) that “the Decalogue constituted ancient Israel’s preexilic criminal law code given to her at Sinai.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Both sides in this debate have taken the use in Deut 5:21 of [/FONT]hwa [FONT=&quot]“desire, incline towards, long for, lust over” instead of the second [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot]“desire” of Exod 20:17 as support for their respective cases. The two verbs are however very close in meaning, so close that A. Phillips (Criminal Law, 150) and Childs (426–27) can ssy that the Deuteronomists used [/FONT]hwa [FONT=&quot]to emphasize the subjective nature of [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot], while Stamm (Stamm and Andrew, Ten Commandments, 104) and Nielsen (Ten Commandments, 43) propose that the Deuteronomists were attempting with this change to tone down the objective action implied by [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot], and move the commandment towards what Stamm calls “mental coveting.” The two verbs are much too nearly synonymous, however, to justify the distinctions these scholars have proposed, and in any case, the expansion of the commandment in Exodus repeats [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot]instead of using [/FONT]hwa [FONT=&quot]or any other verb meaning “covet.” In every OT passage in which [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot]leads to actual possession, a second verb is supplied to make that additional meaning clear. If [/FONT]dmj[FONT=&quot]Another possibility is that [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot], as a verb meaning “desire obsessively, covet or lust after for oneself” and describing a mental and emotional process interior to a person’s being, was the deliberate and careful choice of a verb for the commandment that ends the ten words. Just as the first commandment, “You are not to have other gods,” provides the foundation for covenantal relationship, so this tenth commandment, “You are not to desire for yourself…,” describes the foundation for the severance of covenantal relationship. [/FONT]dmj [FONT=&quot]is by choice a reference to an obsessive covetousness that could be the gateway to the violation of every other principle in the Decalogue. Thus coveting for oneself the gold and silver with which idols are decorated leads to idolatry, the violation of the first commandment. Desiring the “free love” of the fertility cults leads both to the worship of other gods and to sexual irresponsibility, the violation of the first and the seventh commandments (Isa 1:29). Yearning after the possessions of others may lead to stealing, a violation of the eighth commandment (Mic 2:2; Josh 7:21–26, which includes also a violation of the third commandment, since Achan had apparently sworn the oath of Yahweh-war loyalty).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Before Ahab’s obsessive desire for Naboth’s vineyard was satisfied, the ninth and sixth commandments had been broken (1 Kgs 21). Before David’s lust for Bathsheba was sated, the seventh, eight, and sixth commandments were broken (2 Sam 11–12). The coveting merchants of Amos’s day broke the fourth and the eighth commandments in their fever to possess (Amos 8:4–6). The citizens of Judah in Jeremiah’s time, deifying their desires and longing after a material and local security, violated the first, third, sixth, seventh, and ninth commandments, and above all, by making Yahweh’s temple into a fetish, the second commandment as well (Jer 7:1–15). And the son whose determined desire for his own way led him to strike (Exod 21:15) or abuse (Exod 21:17) his father or his mother was guilty of breaking the fifth commandment.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The tenth commandment thus functions as a kind of summary commandment, the violation of which is a first step that can lead to the violation of any one or all the rest of the commandments. As such, it is necessarily all-embracing and descriptive of an attitude rather than a deed. It was perhaps set last in the Decalogue precisely because of this uniquely comprehensive application.[/FONT]
tyb[FONT=&quot] “house,” in accord with this broad application, is used in its collective sense, in reference to the “neighbor’s” entire family and his entire property, as for example in Gen 7:1 or Deut 11:6. LXX reverses the sequence of “house” and “wife” in the text of Exod 20:17, as also does MT in the parallel version of this commandment in Deut 5:21, thus making “house” a more specific term and setting up a descending sequence from a man’s most valuable possession in the OT view, his wife (Prov 31:10–31), to his least valuable ones. This change may be regarded as a later shifting of emphasis within the form of the expanded tenth commandment. In its original form, the commandment must have been deliberately comprehensive, with the reference to the neighbor’s house taking in all that belonged to any fellow member of the covenant community.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The basic form of the tenth commandment thus prohibits an obsessive desire for any property belonging to any other person bound to the covenant with Yahweh. The expansion of the basic form specifies five categories of the most valuable possessions the neighbor could have: wife, male slave, female slave, ox, and ass. Moran (CBQ 29 [1967] 548–52) has reviewed an extensive series of similar lists from Ugaritic legal texts and established a fairly consistent formula for the listing of an owner’s total property (“ ‘house and field’ + specifications [buildings, various forms of cultivation, personnel, livestock] + generic formula, ‘everything else belonging to him’ &#8221. One of the texts Moran lists (550–51) is an almost word-for-word parallel (cf. Nougayrol, Palais Royal 3:111, 115–16) to Exod 20:17.[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT].” (Durham, John I., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 3: Exodus, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998)[/FONT]

“The tenth commandment disallows covetousness. The general idea of the root hamad is "to desire earnestly," "to long after," or "to covet." In the parallel passage in Deuteronomy 5:21, it is paralleled by tith 'awweh ("to set one's desire" on something).
This commandment deals with man's inner heart and shows that none of the previous nine commandments could be observed merely from an external or formal act. Every inner instinct that led up to the act itself was also included. The point is as Paul later told Timothy, "Godliness with contentment is great gain" (1 Tim 6:6). Jesus also commented, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander" (Matt 15:19). (Expositors, Exodus, Walter Kaiser Jr)

“20:17 Tenth commandment. The final commandment forbids an individual to covet what belongs to another. Unlike all the other commands, it addresses inner feelings and thoughts such as envy or greed. If the Israelites were to enjoy a harmonious covenant relationship with God, every aspect of their lives must conform to his will. Outward adherence is insufficient; their inner selves must be patterned according to the divine principles of morality found in the Ten Commandments. As Jesus reminds us, to interpret the commandments as requiring only outward obedience is to misunderstand their purpose (Mt. 5:17–48). (Carson, D.A.; et al., The New Bible Commentary, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press) 1994.)

“Whatever action it spawns, this illegitimate desire for something that belongs to someone else is the core of the problem and a threat to the community; any action taken to fulfil such a desire is sin. (Walton, John H.; Matthews, Victor H.; Chavalas, Mark W., The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) c2000.)

Funny, I could have sworn I edited this last week to contain my response. Guess not.
Defining down coveting isn't going to win you any points or credibility. Posting a bunch of commentaries does not change what coveting is. You're more than welcome to believe them, but I should think you could give a much more critical analysis of them rather than simply taking them at their word.

So, one cannot “desire earnestly” a person or an object without engaging the imagination, of setting one’s heart on something that is not rightfully one’s own. Of course this is not to say that if a single person notices a person of the opposite sex and finds them attractive that this coveting. The idea seems to be more of a dissatisfaction of what one has been given in life by God, and to always be looking around thinking that what everybody else has is better and that one wishes that one could have what they do, never being satisfied with what one has.

Try a word study of the actual word rather than of commentaries that talk about the root word. The root word and the real word are sometimes quite different, and this is one such case. Also, the circumstances of word must be taken into account. I don't see where you did that.

 

[chingchang]

I'll have to get to this tomorrow. A few things have come up that require my full attention. Give me about 18 hours.

This will go on endlessly...debating about definitions...and nothing will be accomplished. Maybe a better route to discovering a Godly view on this topic would be to uncover the Godly ethic and then test the behavior/act? Whether we test the behavior/act specifically to the law of the old coventant or the law of the new covenant...it passes. Under the old covenant there would have to be a law prohibiting the behavior. Leviticus 18 would be the appropriate place in the OT to find such a prohibition. It can not be found there...because there was no prohibition against masturbation. Under the new coventant law (the "Royal" law as James put it)...the law of love...there is no conflict. So...the ethic generally goes like this...if the behavior/act doesn't harm anybody and you do it with a clear conscious...then it is "o.k.". This is really what it comes down to. If you have a problem with it...then don't do it! But don't tell others that they are sinning by doing it...you are putting them in bondage...and it is for FREEDOM that Christ died for us!

CC

 

[Kencj]

Well said.

It's a far greater "sin" to make something into a sin that the Law clearly doesn't say is a sin. Covetousness is a sin, and that's what the Bible means by "lust". The simple desire for sex, which is not at all what the Bible means by "lust", is not only not a sin, it's another of the millions of God's gifts.

At the same time, I also agree that it's nothing to be proud of -I dont know of any person, no matter how atheistic/materialist who would brag to his or her friends of having masturbated. That seems to be a universal, unwritten "law" -that it's only a slightly embarassing "second best" to the real thing.

 

[Kencj]

One last little point from me; the Bible nowhere teaches that "lust", i.e. desire, is wrong. Buddhism teaches that.

 

[dayhiker]

Ken, I agree that its Buddism that sees passion itsself as the thing that causes the problem. But I think from the ascetisism in the early church that took Paul's use of the words "desire of the flesh" as refering to all passion rather than a limited subset of passion ... passion for evil this idea that passion or lust itsself is often evil. Ofcourse they consider sexual passion even worse. But its clear to me as you point out that its coveting someone elses wife that Jesus is talking about.

dayhiker

 

[max1120]

I'm curious as to where the Bible says masturbation is abusing God's creation. I've not come accross that verse.

There is a very good reason why you have never come across that verse..because it is not in the bible. Some try to say it is "implied" but I fear they do this because some have a very narrow interpretation of the bible and because they believe that basically all sex is somehow wrong (accept for procreation). It is truely sad that here we are in 21st century and there are still people living in the dark ages when it comes to sex.

 

[max1120]

Masturbation is perfectly natural, perfectly harmless and actually has real health benifits (both the body and the mind). It is not a sin and we need to see masturbation and sexuality for what it is and not try to make it some sort of evil act. We need to grow up and stop trying to put the devil or boogie man into every sexual act. Everyone does it and it is natural.

 

[GQ Chris]

There is a very good reason why you have never come across that verse..because it is not in the bible. Some try to say it is "implied" but I fear they do this because some have a very narrow interpretation of the bible and because they believe that basically all sex is somehow wrong (accept for procreation). It is truely sad that here we are in 21st century and there are still people living in the dark ages when it comes to sex.

It also boils down to the philosophy with some highly legalistic religious folks in evangelical circles that, "somebody, somewhere is having some fun and we just can't allow that." lol

 

[dayhiker]

My feeling as to why religious people like to make masturbation a sin is its the best way to make people feel guilty. Perachers love to have people react to their preaching. If they didn't have sexual things to make people feel guilty then there would be very little they could make people feel guilty about. In Bible days it was the bowing down and the worship of idols. But in most of the west there aren't a lot of people that are worshipping idols these days.

 

[max1120]

It also boils down to the philosophy with some highly legalistic religious folks in evangelical circles that, "somebody, somewhere is having some fun and we just can't allow that." lol

I think there could be an element of truth to what you are saying. BTW I love your icon. The movie "Stripes" always cracks me up!

 

[Space Cadet]

Masturbation is perfectly natural, perfectly harmless and actually has real health benifits (both the body and the mind). It is not a sin and we need to see masturbation and sexuality for what it is and not try to make it some sort of evil act. We need to grow up and stop trying to put the devil or boogie man into every sexual act. Everyone does it and it is natural.

Agreed.

 

[max1120]

Thank you space cadet. It is a shame so many have such a hang up about something so simple and natural. I think these sexual hangups manifest themselves later in life and become serious mental problems that destroy lives and wreck marriages. People are taught to not be comfortable with their own sexuality and it can lead to unhealthy sexuality. It is time we grew up and accepted sexuality as just a natural part of life.

 

[cowboysfan1970]

There is a very good reason why you have never come across that verse..because it is not in the bible. Some try to say it is "implied" but I fear they do this because some have a very narrow interpretation of the bible and because they believe that basically all sex is somehow wrong (accept for procreation). It is truely sad that here we are in 21st century and there are still people living in the dark ages when it comes to sex.

And you would be surprised at the number of people that still believe this today. It also seems to be growing among some groups. I think it's based in ancient Greek philosophy that viewed the body as evil and the spirit as good. They believed that what you gave to the body you robbed from the spirit. They influenced early Christianity and their beliefs got handed down from generation to generation. The Victorians picked it up and ran with it, and those beliefs still exist to this day. The thing is that people who do believe this usually very passionately believe it and they can really present it to you in a very plausible way. They will go on about how we are to keep ourselves pure and how we are to deny ourselves and practice self control. They don't really make any distinction of how things are to be from the time somebody is single to when they are married and afterwards.

 

[GQ Chris]

That's it! It is a Gnostic heresy! lol

 

[cowboysfan1970]

There could be some Gnosticism in it. And it's alive and well in some corners of Christianity today.

 

[UnionJack]

Matthew 5:30
"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

All the scientific evidence and acceptance of masturbation is the work of the devil. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't mean it's alright. Haven't you ever heard, "Walk the narrow path"? If you are Christian and you do it, what makes you any different than a non believer on the street?


God does not tell us repenting will be easy, only that it will be worth it.