sex question...*blush*

[bliz]

Masturbation either IS or ISNT a sin.

But Paul does not tell us this when the topic was the eating of meat offered to idols. Some Christians felt it was a sin and some felt it was OK. But when Paul discussed the issue in I Corinthians 8 he did not tell the meat eaters to stop or tell the non meat eaters to chow down. He told the two groups how to get along, but did not state a universal rule regarding the consumption of this meat.

 

[woobadooba]

But Paul does not tell us this when the topic was the eating of meat offered to idols. Some Christians felt it was a sin and some felt it was OK. But when Paul discussed the issue in I Corinthians 8 he did not tell the meat eaters to stop or tell the non meat eaters to chow down. He told the two groups how to get along, but did not state a universal rule regarding the consumption of this meat.

This is a very poor argument because it is of an entirely different context. Incidentally, Paul made it quite clear later on that all meat, as such, was good.

But to answer your argument with the same line of reasoning...

The Bible says nothing about not using LSD, yet, according to your logic, it would be ok for us to trip out on it.

Surely you wouldn't agree that it is ok for the Christian to use such drugs.

You can't have it both ways. You are either for it, or against it. If you are against it, then you must refute your own argument.

 

[bliz]

To argue that mastrubation is not a sin and to argue for the use of LSD are hardly comparable. LSD use is illegal, and quite danagerous to the user and those nearby. Mastrubation is none of those things.

You have not established that mastrubation is a sin. You have established that you belive that it is a sin for you to mastrubate, and I will defer to your judgement and conviction on that matter. But that it is a sin for everyone? No. You have not made a cogent argument for that position.

Yelling in large blue font is not the same thing as presenting any sort of argument.

It isn't for you to decide. The Bible makes it very clear that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. And masturbation is not of faith; it belongs to the carnal nature!

Tell me, how do you touch to the glory of God?

What does "not of faith" even mean? Whatever it means, declaring that mastrubation is "not of faith" without any Biblical source or argument is not an argument and it certainly is not persuasive.

How does one do anything to the glory of God. How do I have sex with my husband to the glory of God? Urinate? Defecate? Burp? Pass gas? Have wet dreams?

The Bible tells us to abstain from sexual immorality. Now, how is it that having sex with yourself(masturbating)doesn't fall into the category of sexual immorality?

And that is precisely what you are doing when you touch; you are having sex with yourself.

God told the man and the woman to be fruitful and multiply. He made the penis for the vagina, not the hand for the penis!

Please explain why you think that mastrubation is sexual immorality. You have declared that it is, but you have offered no reasons for that belief. In various and sundry passages, the Bible is very explicit about any number of sexual sins, but makes no mention of mastrubation, certainly one of the most readily available, easy to do and most private of human activities.

What you are really saying here is that what's true for you isn't necessarily going to be true for me. And what is a moral issue for me isn't necessarily going to be a moral issue for you. Thus you are a relativist.

How can God be so confused that He would reveal to me that it is wrong to touch, but reveal to you that it is ok?

You are working under the assumption that there is only one version of the Christian life that pleases God - yours, I assume! Please, think about the lives of the people in the Bible. Some lived in palaces and some in poverty and caves, some had great power, some had none whatsoever. Some were outspoken and others almost silent. And they were all right where God wanted them to be doing what God wanted them to do. Yes, they had many things in common, but they also lived other parts of their lives quite differently.

Again, look at Paul's instructions about eating the meat offered to idols. He never tells the non-meat eaters to sharpen their steak knives and start eating. It is fine with God if they abstain from eating the meat. And at the same time, he does not condemn the meat eaters.

Was God confused when He inspired Paul to write that? I don't think so. Paul was saying that in some matters, that which is morally wrong for one person, can be morally right for another. That may not fit well with your black & white view of life, but it's a Biblical position.

No one is suggesting that you mastrubate. If God has convicted you and told you that is is wrong, then you would be wrong to do it. But when we start to make rules for other people that the Bible does not give us, we are making laws and not God. That's simply not our place.

 

[woobadooba]

"To argue that mastrubation is not a sin and to argue for the use of LSD are hardly comparable. LSD use is illegal, and quite danagerous to the user and those nearby. Mastrubation is none of those things."

First of all, calm down. Because you got all excited you failed to see that the point I was making about the LSD argument is the same type of argument that you sought to use to support the practice of masturbation!

Thus I was only showing how inconsistent your manner of reasoning was, since what we eat has nothing to do with masturbating! Hence, Paul's argument was of an entirely different context, and nature!


"You have not established that mastrubation is a sin."

I believe I did a very fine job establishing that it is a sin. I suppose you skipped over that post.


"You have established that you belive that it is a sin for you to mastrubate, and I will defer to your judgement and conviction on that matter. But that it is a sin for everyone? No. You have not made a cogent argument for that position."

I established the point that it is not of God, but belongs to the carnal nature. Therefore, it is a sinful practice.

"Yelling in large blue font is not the same thing as presenting any sort of argument. "

I use blue font in all of my posts because I like it.



"Please explain why you think that mastrubation is sexual immorality."


I already explained this buddy! Read the post, and address the argument in an intelligent manner by showing its logical inconsistencies, if there are any, and then we can discuss it further.


"You have declared that it is, but you have offered no reasons for that belief. In various and sundry passages, the Bible is very explicit about any number of sexual sins, but makes no mention of mastrubation, certainly one of the most readily available, easy to do and most private of human activities."

Oh boy, here we go again, using the same faulty reasoning! The Bible also doesn't say anything about not murdering someone with a gun, yet the principle that you shouldn't murder is there!


"You are working under the assumption that there is only one version of the Christian life that pleases God - yours"


There is only one--Christ's! Did He touch to ease his lonliness?


"I assume! Please, think about the lives of the people in the Bible. Some lived in palaces and some in poverty and caves, some had great power, some had none whatsoever. Some were outspoken and others almost silent. And they were all right where God wanted them to be doing what God wanted them to do. Yes, they had many things in common, but they also lived other parts of their lives quite differently."

I can think of a lot of Bible personages who weren't where God wanted them to be, or doing what God wanted them to do! So you are wrong on this point too.

"Again, look at Paul's instructions about eating the meat offered to idols. He never tells the non-meat eaters to sharpen their steak knives and start eating. It is fine with God if they abstain from eating the meat. And at the same time, he does not condemn the meat eaters."

Again, what does eating meat have to do with masturbating?

"Was God confused when He inspired Paul to write that? I don't think so. Paul was saying that in some matters, that which is morally wrong for one person, can be morally right for another. That may not fit well with your black & white view of life, but it's a Biblical position."

So then, what you are really saying is that there is no such thing as absolute morality, but that morals are matters of taste rather than principle. The Bible calls this heresy! Philosophers call it situation ethics. And you call it good!

"No one is suggesting that you mastrubate. If God has convicted you and told you that is is wrong, then you would be wrong to do it. But when we start to make rules for other people that the Bible does not give us, we are making laws and not God. That's simply not our place."

Don't you believe that God can still speak to us today?

Now, here is a question that I challenge you to answer! But first I will give you the premise of it.

Sin is the transgression of the law. The law is a transcript of God's character. Therefore, sin is that which represents the opposite of God's character.

With this in mind, is masturbating according to the character of God or is it according to the character of sin?

See if you can answer this without condemning yourself

 

[bliz]

First of all, calm down. Because you got all excited you failed to see that the point I was making about the LSD argument is the same type of argument that you sought to use to support the practice of masturbation!

Thus I was only showing how inconsistent your manner of reasoning was, since what we eat has nothing to do with masturbating! Hence, Paul's argument was of an entirely different context, and nature!

I assure you, I am not in the least bit exxcited.

Eating meat that was offered to idols was an action about which Christians in the first century church disagreed. Mastrubation is an action about which Christians today disagree. That is why the I Corinthians 8 passage is quite appropriate. Your failure to grasp this explains a great deal about what you have written

I established the point that it is not of God, but belongs to the carnal nature. Therefore, it is a sinful practice.

What does "not of God" mean? You keep making this statement like it trumps all arguments, but you have not been able to explain it. Sorry, "belongs to the carnal nature" does not explain anything, either.

I already explained this buddy! Read the post, and address the argument in an intelligent manner by showing its logical inconsistencies, if there are any, and then we can discuss it further.

Read the whole thread. Still waiting for your argument. You have pontificated and questioned the faith of those who do not agree with you, and used firey phrases worthy of a revival preacher, but you have presented no argument and no scripture showing why you think mastrubation is a sin.

Oh boy, here we go again, using the same faulty reasoning! The Bible also doesn't say anything about not murdering someone with a gun, yet the principle that you shouldn't murder is there!

Yes? And how does this apply to mastrubation? What is the principle?

There is only one--Christ's! Did He touch to ease his lonliness?

I have no idea. Scripture does not say, other than to say that Jesus was fully man and fully God and tempted in all ways. On the basis of that, it's very clear to me that there were times when He was sexually aroused. Since I do not think that mastrubation in and of itself is a sin, it does not matter to me if Jesus did or did not do so. And don't go screaming "Blasphemy!" becasue it is nothing of the sort to speak the truth that Jesus was fully God/fully man.

Again, what does eating meat have to do with masturbating?

(Why do I bother?!)

So then, what you are really saying is that there is no such thing as absolute morality, but that morals are matters of taste rather than principle. The Bible calls this heresy! Philosophers call it situation ethics. And you call it good!

I have not said that there is no absolute morality. There are many things in life about which there is only one right response. Are we to honor our parents? Always. Are we to worship God? Forever. Are we to be faithful to our spouses? In all circumstances. The list goes on and on covering many, many things for which there is one and only one answer or perspective for a Christian.

But I am also saying that there are some things in life about which there is no absolute morality, like eating the meat offered to idols. Scripture does not tell us one way or another if all possible actions are right or wrong.

Are you saying that every human activity is wrong or right for every Christian under all circumstances? If so, please share your list or right and wrong activities with us becasue I know a lot of people wonder about watching TV, movies, anal sex within marriage, blood donations, women in pants, headcoverings in church, if Sabbath is Sunday or Saturday, wine or grape juice at communion, rap music, woman preachers, infant or adult baptism, what to do about Halloween and Easter eggs, Christmas trees and dancing steps less than 30 years old...

Don't you believe that God can still speak to us today?

I know that God speaks to us today. He often speaks to me.

[/QUOTE] Now, here is a question that I challenge you to answer! But first I will give you the premise of it.

Sin is the transgression of the law. The law is a transcript of God's character. Therefore, sin is that which represents the opposite of God's character.

With this in mind, is masturbating according to the character of God or is it according to the character of sin?

See if you can answer this without condemning yourself[/QUOTE]

I can't answer your question becasue I reject your premise. I do not accept that the law is a transcript of God's character becasue I believe that God's character and qualities far exceed that which is covered under the law. You have dminished God and made Him a cop on the corner. God is The Law Giver, but also Creator, Comforter, Father, Prince of Peace... God is every color under the sun, and you want to know if one thing is black or white.

You might find JI Packer's book "Your God is Too Small" very interesting.

 

[KristiLee]

Be ready, there are a lot of I thinks in my following post. Don't trash me as you have been each other. I love the Lord and the Lord has convicted me of this and I have been saved from the bondage of this "life sucker." This is speaking from my personal experience and of those I have spoken to about this, and not an attack on anyone else, whether I agree with you or vice versa.

With that said...

Sin or not: I don't think that masturbation is good or healthy for any person, young or old. I think that it ultimately takes away from the intimacy of what sex is supposed to be, distracts from the pleasure of intercourse, and creates sex to be about yourself, rather than the one you are being intimate with.

Some argue, not necessarily here, that masturbating can be used to mellow out, relieve tension, or neutralize feelings of anxiety/stress/anger etc. I am sure venting and putting someone down could be a "stress reliever" as well, but does that mean it's healthy? Or smoking... some people claim that as a stress reliever also, does that make it healthy? Perhaps masturbation is a "relaxant" (not sure if that is a word but you all catch my drift LOL) but doesn't necessarily mean it is healthy. I think the healthiest way to take care of nervousness is face your fear, or tension by dealing with your problem at hand, and not drowning it away by mellowing out or hiding from it.

Being a married woman, and having been a masturbator in the past, I know that personally I regret doing it at all. And although it hasn't "hurt" my sex life, it did interfere with it. I believe masturbation is like having sex with numerous partners. Instead of giving you "experience" it makes you picky and you end up comparing your life-mate and hoping it could be the way "you do it" and hoping your partner were better. Call me old fasioned but I agree with the "save yourself 'til marriage" thing! And that INCLUDES masturbation.

I don't believe masturbating can hurt you physically, but I do believe it could ultimately hinder your sex life.

One person I know argued that if his/her 12 year old child hit puberty he/she would much prefer the child to touch than to go and have sex. As the article in my previous post said, it would be easy to say you agree. But the Bible says "train your child in the way he should go and he will not stray from it" (paraphrased by myself), I think if you raise your child up in a way of understanding and respect for themselves then you shouldn't have to worry about him/her going out and having sex. If you teach that masturbation is okay so as to prevent them to go and experiment with sex, why not work just as hard to teach them that abstaining is beneficial. I think that ultimately what other people do is their own choice, but there is a great deal a parent is supposed to do that helps lead their child down the right path of life.

People teach their kids about the options in life they have to succeed in a career: go to college; join the military; start work young; etc., why not give them the same options within the realms of sexuality, teaching that ALL are options, but there are good and bad choices with good and bad consequences.

If we're aren't to lead our children down the BEST path, why not tell them that as long as they use birth control and condoms then it is just fine to have intercourse, or if you don't feel comfortable with this, why not tell them oral sex is okay........ it's all a part of something that kids DO NOT HAVE to experience. Kids have much more important things to focus on, they have 18 years to grow into adults, why not enjoy that growing time rather than get caught up in the sexuality of adulthood. They have the rest of their lives to choose that mom and dad were wrong about masturbation, and start doing it; or to say that sex is worth giving out like stickers to kids at the dentist office; or decide they are going to do drugs. As adults they make their own choices, and at that point it becomes between that child/adult and God. But as parents to kids, we have to remember they have the rest of their lives to make those choices to find those things out. As they hit that milestone when they find out how babies are born, why not teach them that sex is sacred, not a toy. Instead of teaching all the things about sex that they don't need to experience at such a young age, we should be teaching them, of life skills: cleaning the house, listening to authority, hygiene, being responsible, being kind, and being respectful; of love, in how we discipline and how we praise; of guidance, in how we take the time to talk to them about the little stuff, so that when the big stuff comes they'll be open to us; of support, as we show them that even if they make mistakes we still are by their side.

Aren't these things more important than them experiencing sex well before they are ready? A 14 year old said he/she has not had sex and it's a big deal because their "already 14."(quotes are only my emphasis and interpretation of their comment) I am very happy that the teenager is still a virgin and that they are standing up for what they believe in. I wonder though who his/her friends parents are that they would be having sex at or younger than 14.

I know it's hard to stop what has started, but there is a whole lot we can do besides "making kids aware of the good, the bad and the ugly" to prevent it. We don't have to isolate our kids from the world, but we do have to protect them!

Why on earth does a person need to touch? Why? If it is to relieve stress, why not learn to deal with the stress by facing it rather than ignoring it and using your hormones as your high.

What kind of message are we sending if we say, sure as a tension breaker go touch. Why not say: "Instead of dealing with your problems, find something to 'take the pain away', like for instance drugs, or alcohol." Why is sex so accepted in comparison to those. They are harmful if abused.

If you go to dictionary.com and type in self-abuse you will find there are 2 different "definitions":

self-a·buse (s

lf

-by

s

)
n.

1. Abuse of oneself or one's abilities.
2. Masturbation. (emphasis mine)

self-abuse

n : manual stimulation of the genital organs (of yourself or another) for sexual pleasure [syn: masturbation (Excitation of one's own or another's genital organs, usually to [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], by manual contact or means other than sexual intercourse.) and, onanism(1.Masturbation. ; Coitus interruptus)]


Even the definition states that masturbation is self-abuse, and we argue it anyway?

That is like homosexuals wanting their "legal union" to be called "marriage (The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife). " We can't change the definition to suit our needs.

Same goes for masturbation. We can justify it all we want, but the truth is the truth. Plain and simple. We could fight to the death about whether the sky was blue or purple, but does that change the color? Or does it remain?

God bless you guys!!

 

[bliz]

I don't think that anyone on this site has suggested that we should all go out and offer mastrubation classes to children or buy them books that advocate the practice in primary colors. I think that most human being will discover it all on their own...

Do I advise people to mastrubate? No. Do I encourage people to mastrubate? No. Mastrubation can become terribly addictive and create major problems in people's lives. If people can happily live without ever mastrubating, more power to them!

All I want is for Christians to stop heaping unbiblical guilt on the heads of thsoe who do mastrubate from time to time. I think that for most humans, including Christians, it will be an ocassional, private activity, not a big deal one way or another. The Bible pulls no pounches and does not hesitate to be very explicit. I don't think that God was too embarassed to spell out that He did not want us to mastrubate. If He did not want us ot do it, He would have said so. If Onan's sin was mastrubation, the Bible would be very clear about that.

All actions that might get out of hand are not forbidden. The Bible does not prohibit the use of alcohol, but does prohibit drunkeness. Gluttony is a sin; enjoying a good meal is not and an ocassional snack is just fine.

 

[woobadooba]

Excuse me, but...

You can't separate God's character from His law. In fact, I can provide you with verses that demonstrate that the law is a transcript of God's character.

Would you like me to do that, and if I do, will you then answer my question?

Truth is, you won't answer my question because you can't answer it without condemning yourself.

And even if I didn't use the premise that God's law is a transcript of His character, you still wouldn't be able to answer the question without condemning yourself.

Let's try it...

Is masturbation according to the character of God or is it something that is a part of the carnal nature?

 

[woobadooba]

I've taken the liberty to validate my premise for Mr. Bliz, since he doesn't like to answer valid questions.

He said that the law isn't a transcript of God's character, but the Bible says otherwise, and here it is...

The characteristics are listed to your left, and the Bible verses next to the titles, God and The Law, indicate that such characteristics apply to each.

Good: God--Lk. 18:19; The Law--Rom. 7:12
Holy: God--Isa. 5:16; The Law--Rom. 7:12
Just: God--Deut. 32:4; The Law--Rom. 7:12
Perfect: God--Matt. 5:48; The Law--Ps. 19:7
Love: God--1Jn. 4:8; The Law--Rom. 13:10
Pure: God--1Jn. 3:3; The Law--Ps. 19:8
Eternal: God--Gen.21:33; The Law--Ps. 111:7, 8

Without a shadow of a doubt, the law is a transcript of God's character according to the Bible!

Now, if the law is a transcript of God's character, and sin is the trangression of the law, then that which is sinful is contrary to the character of God.

With this in mind, Is masturbation of God, or is it something that is of the carnal nature?

I believe we all know the answer to the question. Some have already answered it and others refused to answer it, and will continue to do so because they know that in answering it they must condemn themselves!

I proved my case as far as I am concerned. masturbation is a sin. But my oponents have only stated that their position is an opinion. So, who are we going to believe?

They've offered no valid points that are consistent with themselves(as I have shown), but only their opinions.

I've offered a solid argument that is not only consistent with itself, but with the Bible.

As far as I am concerned, this debate is over, and the conclusion of the matter will be determined by answering the question:

Is masturbation of God(according to His character)or is it of sin(according to the carnal nature)?

Peace!

 

[bliz]

Excuse me, but...

You can't separate God's character from His law.

I'm not suggesting that you can. I am saying that His law is not all of His character. God is far more than His laws, and far more than the Lawgiver. That does not mean that I don't think He is the Lawgiver; He is. But studying the laws of God will not tell us everything there is to know about God.

In fact, I can provide you with verses that demonstrate that the law is a transcript of God's character.

Would you like me to do that, and if I do, will you then answer my question?

Truth is, you won't answer my question because you can't answer it without condemning yourself.

I told you why I would not answer your question; are you doubting my veracity? The verses would be very interesting, so, please, provide...

And even if I didn't use the premise that God's law is a transcript of His character, you still wouldn't be able to answer the question without condemning yourself.

Condemning myself... as what? To what?

Let's try it...

Is masturbation according to the character of God or is it something that is a part of the carnal nature?

What do you mean by "according to the character of God"? Consistant with the character of God? Compatiable with the character of God? Reflective of the character of God? As a general rule, I don;t answer questions when I don't know what the question means.

You answer the question with a more neutral activity to help me understand what you mean... is, say running according to the character of God? Is baking according to the character of God? Please explain how those actions are or aren't "according to" the character of God.

It's getting to be past my bedtime... I'll read the verses in the morning and your further explaination concerning what "according to..." means.

 

[woobadooba]

[/color]

I'm not suggesting that you can. I am saying that His law is not all of His character. God is far more than His laws, and far more than the Lawgiver. That does not mean that I don't think He is the Lawgiver; He is. But studying the laws of God will not tell us everything there is to know about God.



I told you why I would not answer your question; are you doubting my veracity? The verses would be very interesting, so, please, provide...
[/size]


Condemning myself... as what? To what?



What do you mean by "according to the character of God"? Consistant with the character of God? Compatiable with the character of God? Reflective of the character of God? As a general rule, I don;t answer questions when I don't know what the question means.

You answer the question with a more neutral activity to help me understand what you mean... is, say running according to the character of God? Is baking according to the character of God? Please explain how those actions are or aren't "according to" the character of God.

It's getting to be past my bedtime... I'll read the verses in the morning and your further explaination concerning what "according to..." means.

Post number 149 offers not only my premise, but Biblical justification for it. I suggest you read it carefully, as well as the verses that I've provided you with--carefully please!

(Readers, do you notice how Mr. bliz is trying to evade the question by asking what I mean by according to, as if he doesn't get it?)

But let's entertain the question...

The Bible teaches us that we are to do all things to the glory of God, since that's what it means to be holy.

Now, we can't sin according to the glory of God right? For sin is contrary to His nature.

Now, we can eat and drink to the glory of God, that is, if we eat and drink that which God designed us for in terms of consumption, but can we really touch according to the glory of God?

I use this argument and ask this question because let's just take wine for example...

You can drink it to the glory of God, but you can't do it to the glory of God if you consume more than you ought to. And so sex can also be done to the glory of God, but if you perform sexual acts for which you were not designed, you pervert that gift!

I will address this a little more in just a moment.

So then, to the glory of God means that God has designed us to do certain things in certain ways. And when we do what we were designed to do, we honor Him, thus doing whatever that is to His glory.

But, sin is what is known as a perversion of such traits. So, sin happens when we try to do that which ought to be done according to the glory of God in a perverted fashion. In other words, its something that happens when we try to meet our needs in our own way. In this case, masturbation is something that is done to meet ones so-called sexual needs.

But why did God give us sex? The answer to that question is found in the Genesis account wherein God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply."

Thus sex was a gift given by God to both the woman and the man, and was something that was purposed not merely for their enjoyment, but for reproductive purposes. Thus, sex is a gift given by God that was meant to be enjoyed by a couple and not merely an individual.

But sex, as we all know, has been perverted in many ways. In fact, one poster even admitted that he uses the sexual act of masturbation to ease his emotional pain. Do you remember the point I made about sin happening when one endeavors to meet his needs in his own way? To give God the glory would be to cast his cares on Jesus, since that is what the Bible tells us to do to ease our emotional pain.

Therefore, masturbation must be a perversion of sex, since sex was given by God to a couple, and not an individual. Hence, it can't be something that we can do to the glory of God.

And becaus we can't do it to His glory, it is not of Him!

I just don't understand why it is so hard for some people to see this truism.

 

[holo]

Now, with these concepts in mind, is it an act of faith to touch as a means to ease ones emotional prowess, or is it an act of the carnal nature?

Doing something that's rooted in "carnal nature" isn't necessarily wrong. Our flesh may be weak, but it's not evil. You don't eat or scratch your leg as an act of faith.

And they don't hear it because, like the saying quoted above wherein Jesus said, "I never knew you", they don't know Him! And because they don't know Him they can't hear His voice!

Are you implying that people who touch don't really know Jesus?

The Bible says nothing about not using LSD, yet, according to your logic, it would be ok for us to trip out on it.

It may not be wise, but it certainly wouldn't be a sin (aside from being illegal and that).

So then, what you are really saying is that there is no such thing as absolute morality, but that morals are matters of taste rather than principle. The Bible calls this heresy! Philosophers call it situation ethics. And you call it good!

No, the bible doesn't mention "moral absolutes" - there may be absolute morality, but unlike you, we don't see masturbation as a moral issue at all. I don't agree that maturbation in itself is any more (im)moral than what make-up you wear.

 

[bliz]

I've taken the liberty to validate my premise for Mr. Bliz, since he doesn't like to answer valid questions.

Well, first of all, I will gladly answer your question once the false premise and unclear wording are cleaned up.

He said that the law isn't a transcript of God's character,

I never said anything of the kind. I said that the law is not a complete transcript of God's character. Do you try and misrepresent what I say or do you not understand what I say?

...but the Bible says otherwise, and here it is...
The characteristics are listed to your left, and the Bible verses next to the titles, God and The Law, indicate that such characteristics apply to each.

Good: God--Lk. 18:19; The Law--Rom. 7:12
Holy: God--Isa. 5:16; The Law--Rom. 7:12
Just: God--Deut. 32:4; The Law--Rom. 7:12
Perfect: God--Matt. 5:48; The Law--Ps. 19:7
Love: God--1Jn. 4:8; The Law--Rom. 13:10
Pure: God--1Jn. 3:3; The Law--Ps. 19:8
Eternal: God--Gen.21:33; The Law--Ps. 111:7, 8

Without a shadow of a doubt, the law is a transcript of God's character according to the Bible!

I cannot agree to that. The law is a partial transcript of God's character - yes. But the law is not the sum total of God's character. God's jurisprudence compleatly omits God's sense of humor, His faithfulness, His incomprehensible capacity to forgive, His creativity, His omnipresence...

So, I still reject your premise...

And I shall respond further to your next post becasue there, for the very first time, you finally lay out your argument for why you think mastrubation is a sin...

 

[bliz]

Post number 149 offers not only my premise, but Biblical justification for it. I suggest you read it carefully, as well as the verses that I've provided you with--carefully please!

(Readers, do you notice how Mr. bliz is trying to evade the question by asking what I mean by according to, as if he doesn't get it?)

Once again, I still do not accept your premise since you are only dealing with one facet of God... and BTW, I am not Mr. Bliz. There are these clever little color coded symbols that indicate gender in the upped left-hand corner of our posts...

But let's entertain the question...

The Bible teaches us that we are to do all things to the glory of God, since that's what it means to be holy.

Now, we can't sin according to the glory of God right? For sin is contrary to His nature.

Now, we can eat and drink to the glory of God, that is, if we eat and drink that which God designed us for in terms of consumption, but can we really touch according to the glory of God?

Sorry to be a stickler - but you keep throwing in a word that is not in Scripture. We are to do everything we do to the glory of God. No argument there. But when you throw in the word "according" I no longer know what you mean.

I can do things "according to the laws of God" - which would mean following and adhearing to the laws of God. But I am unable to do anything "according to the glory of God" becasue all of my righteousness is as a filthy rag. I can not follow or adhear to the glory of God since it is so far beyond me. I am able to do things that will bring glory to God or reflect the glory of God... is that what you mean by "according to the glory of God" ?

I use this argument and ask this question because let's just take wine for example...

You can drink it to the glory of God, but you can't do it to the glory of God if you consume more than you ought to.

I totally agree with you.

And so sex can also be done to the glory of God, but if you perform sexual acts for which you were not designed, you pervert that gift!

I will address this a little more in just a moment.

So then, to the glory of God means that God has designed us to do certain things in certain ways. And when we do what we were designed to do, we honor Him, thus doing whatever that is to His glory. /

Again - total agreement!

But, sin is what is known as a perversion of 1. such traits. So, sin happens when we try to do that which ought to be done 2. according to the glory of God in a perverted fashion. In other words, its something that happens 3. when we try to meet our needs in our own way. 4. In this case, masturbation is something that is done to meet ones so-called sexual needs.

Here the waters muddy again...

1. What traits? You nmade no prior reference ot traits.

2. There's that word 'according' again and I don't know what you mean by the use of that word in that context. If you really want to discuss this, you are going to have to take it out, change it or explain it.

3. trying to meet our own needs in our own way is not inherently sinful. God on a few ocassions has detailed the one and only way to do some things, but there is great latitude in other matters, like the eating of meat offered to idols... God commands us to honor our parents.

4. That may be one of the reasons why it's done, but it is clearly not the only reason. Very young children mastrubate. I don't think thay are doing so to meet sexual needs.

But why did God give us sex? The answer to that question is found in the Genesis account wherein God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply."

Sorry - but what do you mean by 'sex'?

Thus sex was a gift given by God to both the woman and the man, and was something that was purposed not merely for their enjoyment, but for reproductive purposes. Thus, sex is a gift given by God that was meant to be enjoyed by a couple and not merely an individual.

If you define 'sex' as sexual relations between two people, yes. And sex is not only for physical pleasure and procreation, but it also creates unity and bonding and is an all round good physical work-out.

But sex is more than sexual relations. God made us sexual beings, and that sexuality is not limited to the bedroom. Virgins are sexual beings. Children are sexual beings. Old people are sexual beings. We do not magically become sexual beings when we are pronounced "husband and wife". I enjoy my sexuality in and out of the bedroom, 24/7.

But sex, as we all know, has been perverted in many ways. In fact, one poster even admitted that he uses the sexual act of masturbation to ease his emotional pain. Do you remember the point I made about sin happening when one endeavors to meet his needs in his own way? To give God the glory would be to cast his cares on Jesus, since that is what the Bible tells us to do to ease our emotional pain.

And married couples never have intercourse to ease emotional pain? Is a married couple having sexual relations to ease emotional pain perverting God's plan for sex? Shouldn't they be casting their cares on Jesus, too? Is a married couple that has sex so that one of them can get to sleep perverting God's plan and failing to trust God to meet the need for sleep in some other way? Hardly.

Therefore, masturbation must be a perversion of sex, since sex was given by God to a couple, and not an individual. Hence, it can't be something that we can do to the glory of God.

Sexual relations with other people was given by God to married, male/female couples. Sexuality is given to all of us. Physical pleasure is not limited to married couples. Bubble baths feel good to the single and married alike. Mastrubation is an extension of our sexuality, not a perversion of sexual relations.

And becaus we can't do it to His glory, it is not of Him!

And I think that one can mastrubate to God's glory. Obviously some cannot, and therefore they should not mastrubate. Some people are unable to drink only a small amount of wine, and they should abstain all together. But others can drink wine to the glory of God, as you said, and you did not propose that the wine drinkers need stop becasue some abuse wine.

I just don't understand why it is so hard for some people to see this truism.

Me either!

 

[woobadooba]

Once again, I still do not accept your premise since you are only dealing with one facet of God... and BTW, I am not Mr. Bliz. There are these clever little color coded symbols that indicate gender in the upped left-hand corner of our posts...

[/size] [/color][/size]

Sorry to be a stickler - but you keep throwing in a word that is not in Scripture. We are to do everything we do to the glory of God. No argument there. But when you throw in the word "according" I no longer know what you mean.

I can do things "according to the laws of God" - which would mean following and adhearing to the laws of God. But I am unable to do anything "according to the glory of God" becasue all of my righteousness is as a filthy rag. I can not follow or adhear to the glory of God since it is so far beyond me. I am able to do things that will bring glory to God or reflect the glory of God... is that what you mean by "according to the glory of God" ?



I totally agree with you.

And so sex can also be done to the glory of God, but if you perform sexual acts for which you were not designed, you pervert that gift!

I will address this a little more in just a moment.

So then, to the glory of God means that God has designed us to do certain things in certain ways. And when we do what we were designed to do, we honor Him, thus doing whatever that is to His glory. /

Again - total agreement!

Here the waters muddy again...

1. What traits? You nmade no prior reference ot traits.

2. There's that word 'according' again and I don't know what you mean by the use of that word in that context. If you really want to discuss this, you are going to have to take it out, change it or explain it.

3. trying to meet our own needs in our own way is not inherently sinful. God on a few ocassions has detailed the one and only way to do some things, but there is great latitude in other matters, like the eating of meat offered to idols... God commands us to honor our parents.

4. That may be one of the reasons why it's done, but it is clearly not the only reason. Very young children mastrubate. I don't think thay are doing so to meet sexual needs.



Sorry - but what do you mean by 'sex'?



If you define 'sex' as sexual relations between two people, yes. And sex is not only for physical pleasure and procreation, but it also creates unity and bonding and is an all round good physical work-out.

But sex is more than sexual relations. God made us sexual beings, and that sexuality is not limited to the bedroom. Virgins are sexual beings. Children are sexual beings. Old people are sexual beings. We do not magically become sexual beings when we are pronounced "husband and wife". I enjoy my sexuality in and out of the bedroom, 24/7.



And married couples never have intercourse to ease emotional pain? Is a married couple having sexual relations to ease emotional pain perverting God's plan for sex? Shouldn't they be casting their cares on Jesus, too? Is a married couple that has sex so that one of them can get to sleep perverting God's plan and failing to trust God to meet the need for sleep in some other way? Hardly.



Sexual relations with other people was given by God to married, male/female couples. Sexuality is given to all of us. Physical pleasure is not limited to married couples. Bubble baths feel good to the single and married alike. Mastrubation is an extension of our sexuality, not a perversion of sexual relations.



And I think that one can mastrubate to God's glory. Obviously some cannot, and therefore they should not mastrubate. Some people are unable to drink only a small amount of wine, and they should abstain all together. But others can drink wine to the glory of God, as you said, and you did not propose that the wine drinkers need stop becasue some abuse wine.



Me either!

As I said before, I do think this debate has ended. At this point it is useless to go on.

Readers, you be the judge of who offered the best reason regarding this issue.

As far as I am concerned, those who support this habit are resisting the Spirit.

And I am not at all surpised that Bliz said that we could do this to the glory of God, thus condemning herself, since this practice is without a shadow of a doubt contrary to His character.

It is really sad that we've come to an age wherein Christians support sexual immorality.

As far as I am concerned, according to Bliz and the others, God is confused, and can't speak to us anymore. And sin is no longer defined by God, but by our tastes.

Bliz, the arguments that you've presented are out of context, especially the one about the bubble bath--how foolish to compare masturbation with a bubble bath!

And it is even more interesting that you are fighting to support something that you really don't understand, being woman who I believe admitted to not being one who masturbates.

I am going to be vulnerable right now for the sake of justifying my argument that you really don't understand this issue.

I've struggled with this problem for years, and you have no idea what it does to a man. It is addictive, and it does in fact cause a man to paint lustful images in his mind while doing it.

Any man that would deny this is a liar.

And the comment by Holo that we can do that which belongs to the carnal nature and not sin is just nonsense!

Anyway, this discussion has gone on too long.

The points have been made. Readers, let the Spirit be the judge.

 

[bliz]

I am sorry that you have struggled with mastrubation, I know that it is a difficult struggle for many men and women. But just as alcohol is a struggle for some people and no problem at all for others, mastrubation is not a universally addictive activity that leads everyone into lust. So often in life we want to protect people from the things that have wounded us, not realizing that those things may not be a threat to someone else at all.

I wish we could have discussed this matter without my position being misrepresented or distorted. I believe that falls under the catagory of bearing false witness.

 

[woobadooba]

I am sorry that you have struggled with mastrubation, I know that it is a difficult struggle for many men and women. But just as alcohol is a struggle for some people and no problem at all for others, mastrubation is not a universally addictive activity that leads everyone into lust. So often in life we want to protect people from the things that have wounded us, not realizing that those things may not be a threat to someone else at all.

I wish we could have discussed this matter without my position being misrepresented or distorted. I believe that falls under the catagory of bearing false witness.

There's nothing more to discuss. At this point the people that have been following this thread will have to decide who presented the strongest case for or against masturbation.

BTW I didn't distort your position, since your position was already distorted. I say it was distorted because your arguments were not sound, but inconsistent not only with the context of the topic, but with themselves, as I had already shown.

Sorry, but I don't follow inconsistent logic, therefore I can't accept your position.

And I am sure I am not the only one that feels this way.

 

[KristiLee]

I apologize for my previous post. I realize I was a little "excited" and kind of went off thread. I would like to emphasise something I said though, because I feel it is a very legitimate statement. God bless!

self-abuse n.

manual stimulation of the genital organs (of yourself or another) for sexual pleasure [syn: masturbation*, onanism**]

*mas·tur·ba·tion n.
Excitation of one's own or another's genital organs, usually to [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], by manual contact or means other than sexual intercourse.

**onan·ism n.
1 : [size=-1]MASTURBATION[/size]
2 : [size=-1]COITUS INTERRUPTUS[/size] —onan·is·tic adjective
Onan, Biblical character. In the Book of Genesis Onan was commanded by his father to impregnate the widow of his slain brother and to raise the offspring of the union. In order to avoid raising descendants for his late brother, however, Onan engaged in coitus interruptus***.

***coitus in·ter·rup·tus n.
Sexual intercourse deliberately interrupted by withdrawal of the penis from the vagina prior to [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]. Also called onanism.

If the definition states that either of these is self-abuse how could it be otherwise?? That is like homosexuals naming their "union" as marriage (The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife).

So many people argue about masturbation being a sin or not, but you can't change the definition to suit your needs.

 

[Snooz]

There's nothing more to discuss. At this point the people that have been following this thread will have to decide who presented the strongest case for or against masturbation.

Ok I will continue to touch !!!

 

[KristiLee]

2 Peter 2

False Teachers and Their Destruction

1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons[b] to be held for judgment;

5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men

8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—

9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.[c]

10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature[d] and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;

11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.

12 But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.[e]

14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!

15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness.

16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.

18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.

19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

22 Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit,"[f]and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."



Footnotes:

1. 2 Peter 2:4 Greek Tartarus
2. 2 Peter 2:4 Some manuscripts into chains of darkness
3. 2 Peter 2:9 Or unrighteous for punishment until the day of judgment
4. 2 Peter 2:10 Or the flesh
5. 2 Peter 2:13 Some manuscripts in their love feasts
6. 2 Peter 2:22 Prov. 26:11