Masturbation

[RMDY]

Isn't that just what happens when someone eats by reason of being hungry?

And how could sex even in marriage even be possible under this kind of thinking? They can only have sex when they DON'T really feel like it?

"Lust" in the Bible simply means "strongly desire" -it has nothing inherently evil about it, and more than hunger or wanting something good badly.
Again someone is stumbling over this word and falling into a terrible kind of phariseeism -not even phariseeism, more like neo-platonism.

We aren't talking about marriages. That is a different subject...

Fornication is not the same topic as being able to have sex inside a marriage even though both are forms of sex...

 

[Zebra1552]

...are you being thick headed on purpose? You tried to say it was PURE fiction, that was false. Pure fiction would mean that everything was invented by the mind of the creator. It doesn't exist.

I'm not being thick headed at all, and if you're this annoyed with me, mayhaps you should take a break, seeing as you posted before I had a chance to clarify something.

I stated it was pure fiction. Do you know what fiction is?

fiction: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

An illusory mental image: daydream, dream, fancy, fantasy, figment, illusion, phantasm, phantasma, reverie, vision. See real/imaginary.

It should have, I was saying that there are MUCH healthier ways to release stress and have fun.

You are under the assumption that masturbation is not healthy, and the link I provided disagrees with that assumption.

Naturalistic fallacy.

Do you even know what a naturalistic fallacy is? You argued that it isn't needed, and I countered that with 'then why is there a sex drive'. I'm not arguing that it being a natural desire makes it right, I'm refuting your clearly fallacious statement.

Like I said, nothing conclusive.

The link disagrees with you.

 

[david_x]

I'm not being thick headed at all, and if you're this annoyed with me, mayhaps you should take a break, seeing as you posted before I had a chance to clarify something.

I stated it was pure fiction. Do you know what fiction is?

...and why are you using a legal dictionary? I assumed you meant the actual definition which is invention.

I know what fiction is, and it is fiction. I'm not against that at all. You tried to say that it was pure invention, which is inconceivable and perhaps impossible.

You are under the assumption that masturbation is not healthy, and the link I provided disagrees with that assumption.

It has (disputed) physical benefits but that doesn't make it more healthy than a sport or something else interpersonal.

Do you even know what a naturalistic fallacy is? You argued that it isn't needed, and I countered that with 'then why is there a sex drive'. I'm not arguing that it being a natural desire makes it right, I'm refuting your clearly fallacious statement.

A sex drive proves nothing, we have a many selfish drives. To argue against scientific fact with something like a 'drive' is irrational. You drive doesn't need to be fulfilled, just like your body can get rid of sperm without [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][bless and do not curse].

The link disagrees with you.

There are many links both ways, I'm unconvinced that it is anything but disputed.

 

[revrobor]

...are you being thick headed on purpose? You tried to say it was PURE fiction, that was false. Pure fiction would mean that everything was invented by the mind of the creator. It doesn't exist.




It should have, I was saying that there are MUCH healthier ways to release stress and have fun.



Naturalistic fallacy.





Like I said, nothing conclusive.

Insulting someone does not add credibility to your argument. BTW there is an image in your revolving avatar that appears to be a duplicate of one used in vulgar drawings. Can you clarify this?

 

[david_x]

Insulting someone does not add credibility to your argument. BTW there is an image in your revolving avatar that appears to be a duplicate of one used in vulgar drawings. Can you clarify this?

I was really wondering, not insulting.

Also which one?

Symbols.com - Symbol 41a:42
Symbols.com - Symbol 25:7
Symbols.com - Symbol 26:51
Symbols.com - Symbol 26:27
Symbols.com - Symbol 26:54
Symbols.com - Symbol 44:11
Symbols.com - Symbol 3:1
Symbols.com - Symbol 25:8

 

[revrobor]

I was really wondering, not insulting.

Also which one?

Symbols.com - Symbol 41a:42
Symbols.com - Symbol 25:7
Symbols.com - Symbol 26:51
Symbols.com - Symbol 26:27
Symbols.com - Symbol 26:54
Symbols.com - Symbol 44:11
Symbols.com - Symbol 3:1
Symbols.com - Symbol 25:8

44:11 and the first sentence of the third paragraph explains why it has been used in that context. Thanks.

 

[Zebra1552]

...and why are you using a legal dictionary? I assumed you meant the actual definition which is invention.

I used the thesaurus. Did you follow the link? I don't post them for no reason, and I don't appreciate it when they're ignored. Especially not when they're ignored to bolster your own straw man fallacy.

You know what they say about assumptions in the south?

I know what fiction is, and it is fiction. I'm not against that at all. You tried to say that it was pure invention, which is inconceivable and perhaps impossible.

I did NOT say it was 'pure invention', I said it was pure FICTION. Why do you think I linked you to a definition?

It has (disputed) physical benefits but that doesn't make it more healthy than a sport or something else interpersonal.

The physical benefits are not disputed! I gave you a link to many, many perfectly good sources that show that it has benefits! If you expect me to buy your claim that they're 'disputed', then you can provide evidence for it.

A sex drive proves nothing, we have a many selfish drives. To argue against scientific fact with something like a 'drive' is irrational. You drive doesn't need to be fulfilled, just like your body can get rid of sperm without [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][bless and do not curse].

It proves that the body thinks it IS needed. That it is NATURAL. If you expect me to believe it's not a need, then you can provide evidence that it is not a need.

There are many links both ways, I'm unconvinced that it is anything but disputed.

I don't care if you're unconvinced. Whether or not you are convinced does not dictate what is or is not reality in the articles listed in that search. If you expect me to believe you, then provide evidence.

 

[Kencj]

BTW there is an image in your revolving avatar that appears to be a duplicate of one used in vulgar drawings. Can you clarify this?

Actually, it's a mandorla, which is a giant cosmic vulva.
Jesus appears inside one often in medieval art, as an indication of the Incarnation.

http://www.pitt.edu/~medart/image/glossary/mandorla.jpg

 

[david_x]

I used the thesaurus. Did you follow the link? I don't post them for no reason, and I don't appreciate it when they're ignored. Especially not when they're ignored to bolster your own straw man fallacy.
You know what they say about assumptions in the south?
I did NOT say it was 'pure invention', I said it was pure FICTION. Why do you think I linked you to a definition?
The physical benefits are not disputed! I gave you a link to many, many perfectly good sources that show that it has benefits! If you expect me to buy your claim that they're 'disputed', then you can provide evidence for it.
It proves that the body thinks it IS needed. That it is NATURAL. If you expect me to believe it's not a need, then you can provide evidence that it is not a need.
I don't care if you're unconvinced. Whether or not you are convinced does not dictate what is or is not reality in the articles listed in that search. If you expect me to believe you, then provide evidence.

1. Clearly there was misunderstanding about the word fiction, which in context could only have meant invention because that is the only way the dictionaries describe it.

2. I don't care if you think it's disputed, I do. I'll put it this way, no concrete sources have accepted the idea. I've heard it causes prostate disease and it prevents prostate disease, i'll let the scientific community figure that out. That is by no means a reason to ignore the fact that it is not a good way to be healthy, you're alone. If you want to do something for health sake you would go for a run, play a game with friends, something.

3. Something is not right because it is natural, that is naturalistic fallacy. You may not be arguing that directly, but that's what it come back too.

4. Your body is selfish, if it thinks it needs to kill you should not let it. If it thinks you should keep on eating and eating and eating because of some drive it is not needed. Your body has many drives, they are not moral or necessary.

5. No one says it's necessary. In fact I know people personally that have NEVER done it.

 

[Zebra1552]

1. Clearly there was misunderstanding about the word fiction, which in context could only have meant invention because that is the only way the dictionaries describe it.

Um, no, and the link I posted to you disagrees with your analysis. I was not using it to mean 'invention', that is your insertion. Again, you are ignoring the links I post in favor of a straw man argument. Please stop.

2. I don't care if you think it's disputed, I do. I'll put it this way, no concrete sources have accepted the idea. I've heard it causes prostate disease and it prevents prostate disease, i'll let the scientific community figure that out. That is by no means a reason to ignore the fact that it is not a good way to be healthy, you're alone. If you want to do something for health sake you would go for a run, play a game with friends, something.

There are some people who are introverted and don't like doing such activities. You have no evidence for it being disputed, your claim is empty and unsupported.

3. Something is not right because it is natural, that is naturalistic fallacy. You may not be arguing that directly, but that's what it come back too.

Straw man argument.

4. Your body is selfish, if it thinks it needs to kill you should not let it. If it thinks you should keep on eating and eating and eating because of some drive it is not needed. Your body has many drives, they are not moral or necessary.

Do you have evidence for this assertion? Or should I just ignore all of psychology?

5. No one says it's necessary. In fact I know people personally that have NEVER done it.

Well, good for them! They're not me or most of the rest of the population.

David, you have given no solid evidence for why masturbation should be considered a sin, nor have you produced evidence for your assertion that it is not healthy, nor have you produced evidence that the sex drive is not a legitimate need of the typical human body. Why should I- or anyone- believe that it is a sin?

 

[Kencj]

We aren't talking about marriages. That is a different subject...
Fornication is not the same topic as being able to have sex inside a marriage even though both are forms of sex...

But you weren't talking about marriage or fornication but "lust", as you put it. What you wrote was...

"Our bodies are a temple of God. We are to not use them for self-gratification to satisfy a lust, under the reason that we need a release."

 

[david_x]

Um, no, and the link I posted to you disagrees with your analysis. I was not using it to mean 'invention', that is your insertion. Again, you are ignoring the links I post in favor of a straw man argument. Please stop.

There are some people who are introverted and don't like doing such activities. You have no evidence for it being disputed, your claim is empty and unsupported.

Straw man argument.

Do you have evidence for this assertion? Or should I just ignore all of psychology?

Well, good for them! They're not me or most of the rest of the population.

David, you have given no solid evidence for why masturbation should be considered a sin, nor have you produced evidence for your assertion that it is not healthy, nor have you produced evidence that the sex drive is not a legitimate need of the typical human body. Why should I- or anyone- believe that it is a sin?

Good thing i'm not trying to prove that masturbation is a sin...

1. Whatever you meant by fiction, doesn't matter. My point is that the fantasy that often accompanies masturbation is not fiction but wishful thinking. (You wish it would be like this) That is dangerous, and sinful.

2. Few people hat society, they wouldn't be masturbating anyways if they didn't have a drive to be around people.

3. It's not a straw man at all. You are basing morality on nature, that is a fallacy.

4. What more evidence do you need? Have you never wanted to take something that wasn't yours? Have you ever wanted to have sex with someone you were not married to?

5. You ignored why I posted that. I'm not saying that everyone is like them, I'm saying it's not necessary, like you tried to say.

 

[Kencj]

My point is that the fantasy that often accompanies masturbation is not fiction but wishful thinking. (You wish it would be like this) That is dangerous, and sinful.

Do you actually believe this, that "wishful thinking" is "dangerous, and sinful"?

 

[david_x]

Do you actually believe this, that "wishful thinking" is "dangerous, and sinful"?

Our thoughts should be for good not evil. Wishful or purposeful.

 

[Kencj]

Our thoughts should be for good not evil. Wishful or purposeful.

You just said that you don't consider masturbation a sin, but you do consider "wishful thinking" a sin?

 

[Zebra1552]

Good thing i'm not trying to prove that masturbation is a sin...

Oh? Then why condemn the activities that are a part of it?

1. Whatever you meant by fiction, doesn't matter.

It DOES matter because you've put words in my mouth that are not there. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.

My point is that the fantasy that often accompanies masturbation is not fiction but wishful thinking. (You wish it would be like this) That is dangerous, and sinful.

Prove it.

2. Few people hat society, they wouldn't be masturbating anyways if they didn't have a drive to be around people.

Address the point I made, please.

3. It's not a straw man at all. You are basing morality on nature, that is a fallacy.

You are making a straw man, as that is not what I am arguing.

4. What more evidence do you need? Have you never wanted to take something that wasn't yours? Have you ever wanted to have sex with someone you were not married to?

That's not what lust is. So your questions are a red herring.

5. You ignored why I posted that. I'm not saying that everyone is like them, I'm saying it's not necessary, like you tried to say.

And if you claim it is not necessary, this is a claim that, unless backed, falls apart.

 

[Zebra1552]

You just said that you don't consider masturbation a sin, but you do consider "wishful thinking" a sin?

Sounds like he's engaging in it [wishful thinking] to say it [masturbation] is a sin.

 

[Kencj]

Sounds like he's engaging in it to say it [masturbation] is a sin.

LOL

 

[RMDY]

But you weren't talking about marriage or fornication but "lust", as you put it. What you wrote was...

"Our bodies are a temple of God. We are to not use them for self-gratification to satisfy a lust, under the reason that we need a release."

Indeed, but I was talking about something outside a marriage. "For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Cor 7:9)





Having sexual intercourse outside marriage = lust + fornication?

Having sexual intercourse inside marriage = lusting? Saint Paul tells married christians to "Stop depriving one another... so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (1 Cor 7:5)


An argument:

Concering touching yourself, "if they[you] cannot control themselves[yourself], they[you] should marry."(1 Corinthians 7:9).

 

[Kencj]

So what you really meant was "Our bodies are a temple of God. We are to not use them for self-gratification to satisfy a lust, under the reason that we need a release unless we're married"?