Masturbation

[Kencj]

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)
touching yourself is of the flesh, is it not?

This is the same problem that cowboysfan is talking about and it really needs to be made clear here.

It's a difficult point and, like cowobysfan, it took me forever to finally understand it, but when Paul was talking about "the flesh" vs "the Spirit" he didn't mean what Plato meant "of the material world" vs his "realm of the forms" or "eternal world" or whatever. Unfortunately because we come from a culture that's still influenced by greek philosophy, people constantly stumble over that difference.

Paul isn't speaking of material vs eternal but law vs grace -are we saved by our deeds, doing this or not doing that, or by putting our faith in Christ and leaving behind salvation by our own works? All sexual activity is "of the flesh" just like all eating food is, but just because it involves the material world does not make it wrong. That's Platonism, gnosticism, buddhism, whatever, but not at all what the Bible teaches. All these things "are to be received with thanksgiving". Paul only warns that we should not be enslaved to material things, sexual or any other kind, because all material things fade away and disappear. And legalism another kind of enslavement.

I hope that makes some kind of sense.

 

[RMDY]

This is the same problem that cowboysfan is talking about and it really needs to be made clear here.

It's a difficult point and, like cowobysfan, it took me forever to finally understand it, but when Paul was talking about "the flesh" vs "the Spirit" he didn't mean what Plato meant "of the material world" vs his "realm of the forms" or "eternal world" or whatever. Unfortunately because we come from a culture that's still influenced by greek philosophy, people constantly stumble over that difference.

Paul isn't speaking of material vs eternal but law vs grace -are we saved by our deeds, doing this or not doing that, or by putting our faith in Christ and leaving behind salvation by our own works? All sexual activity is "of the flesh" just like all eating food is, but just because it involves the material world does not make it wrong. That's Platonism, gnosticism, buddhism, whatever, but not at all what the Bible teaches. All these things "are to be received with thanksgiving". Paul only warns that we should not be enslaved to material things, sexual or any other kind, because all material things fade away and disappear. And legalism another kind of enslavement.

I hope that makes some kind of sense.

Well thank you for your post.

I don't know how to take it, whether your trying to argue for me or against me, but nonetheless, thank you for it

But doing the will of God is not a form of legalism.

 

[Kencj]

I don't mean to hog the forum but let me make one more point.

I'm sure I'll be accused next of saying "anything goes then?", just like Paul was accused of teaching "let us sin that grace may abound". But Christ died to free us from the law altogether, so yes we are in fact free to do anything. But as Paul also says all things are lawful for us but not all are for the best, and we should not be enslaved to anything, whether sensual or legalistic.

Perhaps David x and RMDY are concerned that Godschild and cowboysfan and I are slaves to our sensual nature and not as scrupulous as they are, which is a nice concern to have as a Christian. I understand their viewpoint because, like cowboysfan, I used to feel that way myself. The reason I question them is because i know I caused myself a huge amount of unnecessary pain and guilt because of that belief. I thought that I was being scrupulous and spiritual but I didn’t see that I was at the same time rejecting God’s grace. Perhaps that was something I should have gone through anyway, or perhaps it’s fairly common. Our calling is to grow in God’s grace from whatever direction we come, left or right. I realize now that when it says “go neither to the right nor to the left” it didn’t mean good vs evil, but “anything goes” vs “nothing does”.

 

[RMDY]

Because the quote you gave made no mention of love, only if they can't control themselves they should marry

It also doesn't say that that it doesn't have to do with love.

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.

Well, I do think it's better for me to marry than to burn with passion, so of course I am looking for someone to marry.

I don't quite have anyone special yet, but I'm still looking. It doesn't mean I'm going to just marry anyone that I love or don't love. If I don't end up marrying, oh well. I guess I will have to be self-controlled. Being not married is not the end of the world. In heaven, people won't be given in marriage anyway because we will be like the angels.

And so what if two people marry if they don't love one another at first. Is it such a big deal. That's their buisness. I think that is quite common throughout history in many societies. Those are called arranged marriages I believe.

 

[david_x]

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

Desire for what does not satisfy, in this case wanting sexual things that are of superficial quality.

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.

I suppose one could say the same for 'loving homosexual relationships' but it by no means makes it right.

 

[david_x]

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.

Many condemnable acts are not directly spoken against in the Bible. There more than enough supporting verses that can lead to this/these conclusion/s.

 

[david_x]

I don't mean to hog the forum but let me make one more point.

I'm sure I'll be accused next of saying "anything goes then?", just like Paul was accused of teaching "let us sin that grace may abound". But Christ died to free us from the law altogether, so yes we are in fact free to do anything. But as Paul also says all things are lawful for us but not all are for the best, and we should not be enslaved to anything, whether sensual or legalistic.

Perhaps David x and RMDY are concerned that Godschild and cowboysfan and I are slaves to our sensual nature and not as scrupulous as they are, which is a nice concern to have as a Christian. I understand their viewpoint because, like cowboysfan, I used to feel that way myself. The reason I question them is because i know I caused myself a huge amount of unnecessary pain and guilt because of that belief. I thought that I was being scrupulous and spiritual but I didn’t see that I was at the same time rejecting God’s grace. Perhaps that was something I should have gone through anyway, or perhaps it’s fairly common. Our calling is to grow in God’s grace from whatever direction we come, left or right. I realize now that when it says “go neither to the right nor to the left” it didn’t mean good vs evil, but “anything goes” vs “nothing does”.

I argue the point while it is still a thorn in my side, or a log in my eye if you will. I don't bring condemnation but relief from guilt via conviction.

 

[Kencj]

I argue the point while it is still a thorn in my side, or a log in my eye if you will. I don't bring condemnation but relief from guilt via conviction.

Oy, like I haven't heard the word "conviction" before!

How does "conviction" bring relief from guilt?
Do you not believe that faith in God's grace alone does that?

 

[david_x]

Oy, like I haven't heard the word "conviction" before!

How does "conviction" bring relief from guilt?
Do you not believe that faith in God's grace alone does that?

Well.... that's kind of a lengthy subject. You may want to just read up on it somewhere. Basically conviction shows us the parts of our lives that are hurting us so that we may release any guilt and more importantly, correct it.

 

[Kencj]

But doing the will of God is not a form of legalism.

Pronouncing things as sins, especially things that neither the law nor Christ condemn as sins, is legalism, not faith. Because we are not under the law but under grace, our only commandment is to put our faith in Christ and to love others.

And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. 1 John 3:23

 

[Kencj]

Basically conviction shows us the parts of our lives that are hurting us so that we may release any guilt and more importantly, correct it.

And how are we to do that?

 

[RMDY]

Pronouncing things as sins, especially things that neither the law nor Christ condemn as sins, is legalism, not faith. Because we are not under the law but under grace, our only commandment is to put our faith in Christ and to love others.

And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. 1 John 3:23

He also said to "love the Lord your God.." (Matthew 22:36-38).

Christ also did not specifically condemn beastiality and incest in the gospels during his earthly ministry. So would pronouncing those things as sin be a form of legalism and not faith?

 

[david_x]

And how are we to do that?

Conviction belongs to the Spirit I believe. Like I said it would be better to look it up.

 

[Kencj]

Christ also did not specifically condemn beastiality and incest in the gospels during his earthly ministry. So would pronouncing those things as sin be a form of legalism and not faith?

Of course not, they're already labelled as sins quite clearly in the law of Moses.
Masturbation, which is the subject of this thread, never is.
Are you saved by observing the law or by faith in Christ?

 

[Kencj]

Conviction belongs to the Spirit I believe. Like I said it would be better to look it up.

Please do.

 

[Kencj]

Maybe you're thinking of John 16, referring to the Spirit: “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me..."

 

[cowboysfan1970]

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.

I knew exactly what you meant. What I was trying to drive at is that the point of view that you are using to denounce touching yourself is more or less the same one that the "procreation only" crowd uses to condemn any sex without the sole intent to make a baby. Self control to them doesn't stop when somebody says "I do." They make no distinction between our conduct before we are married as afterward. The word "lust" has been used a lot and they will also apply that word (or the wrong definition of it) to sexual behavior in marriage. They feel that if a husband and wife are having sex because they want to or because they are aroused by each other or desire each other then that's lust and what they are doing is unlawful or at the very least disrespectful. They try to make their point by condemning what they call people's "base passions" or their "animalistic urges" and claim they are being "hedonistic." They take 1 Cor. 7 and emphasize those last two words (self control) and they become bigger than the rest of the verse. The way they see that verse is that those words "lack of self control" means that if a husband and wife are having relations without the sole intent for her to become pregnant then they have no self control, because that is to come first. What they have is really a strong dislike of sexuality and consider it to be "dangerous." They have given it names like "the dirty deed," or "the evil deed." That's very twisted. People that condemn masterbaton are going to have to come up with something better than to more or less use their arguements against non-procreative sex. If you ever run across somebody that believes this and you question them on it you will get a lecture on how you don't understand what the meaning of lust is and what self control is.

Legalism is not following the word of God or God's laws. Legalism is when somebody either expands on those laws or they create new ones and expect everyone else to follow it. They put such a huge amount of importance on following laws that those laws become necessary to be saved and become our final judge and authority, not God. Legalists are often spirtually arrogent and judgemental towards others that don't show outward signs of zeal for the law.

 

[Kencj]

Legalists are often spirtually arrogent and judgemental towards others that don't show outward signs of zeal for the law.

Exactly, and it was the legalists that wanted Jesus crucified, not the liberals, the homosexuals, the pro-choicers, the masturbators, or whoever else is the bad guy du jour.

Its an incredible tragedy that this point is lost on so many people.
And that the reason they hated Jesus so much was exactly because he was so "liberal" and refused to be cowed by their legalism.

 

[RMDY]

Of course not, they're already labelled as sins quite clearly in the law of Moses.
Masturbation, which is the subject of this thread, never is.
Are you saved by observing the law or by faith in Christ?

I am not talking about the Law of Moses, I am talking about using freedom to partake in sin. Shall you use your freedom to partake in beastiality or incest?

 

[Kencj]

I am not talking about the Law of Moses, I am talking about using freedom to partake in sin. Shall you use your freedom to partake in beastiality or incest?

"Shall we sin that grace may abound?"
You're accusing me of exactly what the legalists accused Paul of, as I suspected you would.

Do you believe that you're saved by faith in Christ or by observing the law?