The idea that masturbation wrong.

[Apex]

I fully agree with this, only my point is that it eventually becomes more than simply a matter of your intentions. It also becomes a matter of your responsibility towards others.

Would appear we may have a difference of opinion maybe. So yes, please give me what would be your definition of the term, and what you feel the responsibility of believers is to one another.

With Romans 14:13-23 in focus, Paul essentially states that the strong are blessed. They do not judge themselves for eating what they know to be ultimately clean. The weak, on the other hand, are not similarly blessed. Their consciences are heavily vexed when they eat the same food. Apparently this was food they thought to be defiled due to them clinging legalistically to the old ceremonial laws.

Paul admonishes these strong Christians to respect their weaker companion's faith - to prevent these brothers and sisters from becoming grieved. This "stumbling" comes from the weak Christians attempting to imitate the behavior of the strong, which v. 23 makes clear. As such, the strong should never actively encourage or urge a weaker Christian to eat or drink what they believe to be unclean. The internal conflict they would suffer from such perceived hypocrisy (regardless if it is founded in falsehood) can gravely injury the faith of the weak. This is because they are convinced their actions are forbidden by God.

However, Paul is not saying we need to walk on egg shells around weak Christians. If this was the case, we would all be permanently relegated to behaving as our weakest Christian brother or sister. Not only that, we wouldn't even be allowed to discuss our theological differences. I know people who wont even purchase a bottle of wine at the local grocery store because they might run into one of their more conservative brothers (who thinks drinking is a sin) and "stumble them". Was their intention to try to get their conservative brother to drink even though he feels uncomfortable doing it? If not, they are not putting a stumbling block in front of their brother. The same goes for wearing clothing some might find overly revealing.

 

[hedrick]

People are debating because the points you're making have consequences that can be serious for some people. At least based on postings I see in various parts of CF, they can cause people to spend time fighting themselves when they ought to be doing the things that Jesus told us to do.

Remember, you're posting in the liberal forum. By definition, we look at what Jesus actually taught and what evidence tells us, in preference to traditional attitudes, whether towards sex or anything else.

No one said that following Jesus is easy. We have to die to self. But we should be dying over things that matter to Jesus, not over concerns that come from elsewhere.

 

[-Luca]

People are debating because the points you're making have consequences that can be serious for some people. At least based on postings I see in various parts of CF, they can cause people to spend time fighting themselves when they ought to be doing the things that Jesus told us to do.

Remember, you're posting in the liberal forum. By definition, we look at what Jesus actually taught and what evidence tells us, in preference to traditional attitudes, whether towards sex or anything else.

Or because people take things to serious and always want to feel superior to another.

 

[Hidden In Him]

With Romans 14:13-23 in focus, Paul essentially states that the strong are blessed. They do not judge themselves for eating what they know to be ultimately clean. The weak, on the other hand, are not similarly blessed. Their consciences are heavily vexed when they eat the same food. Apparently this was food they thought to be defiled due to them clinging legalistically to the old ceremonial laws.

Paul admonishes these strong Christians to respect their weaker companion's faith - to prevent these brothers and sisters from becoming grieved. This "stumbling" comes from the weak Christians attempting to imitate the behavior of the strong, which v. 23 makes clear. As such, the strong should never actively encourage or urge a weaker Christian to eat or drink what they believe to be unclean. The internal conflict they would suffer from such perceived hypocrisy (regardless if it is founded in falsehood) can gravely injury the faith of the weak. This is because they are convinced their actions are forbidden by God.

However, Paul is not saying we need to walk on egg shells around weak Christians. If this was the case, we would all be permanently relegated to behaving as our weakest Christian brother or sister. Not only that, we wouldn't even be allowed to discuss our theological differences. I know people who wont even purchase a bottle of wine at the local grocery store because they might run into one of their more conservative brothers (who thinks drinking is a sin) and "stumble them". Was their intention to try to get their conservative brother to drink even though he feels uncomfortable doing it? If not, they are not putting a stumbling block in front of their brother. The same goes for wearing clothing some might find overly revealing.

Zeezee Pete's! I've meditated this principle for decades it would seem, and never have I seen or read it rightly divided that articulately. I always assumed the weakness of the brother needed to take precedence, and yet I always sensed that would place us at the mercy of the weak...

And this brings me face to face with my own weakness. I don't like to think about it, but I would have to admit that the problem may rest primarily if not solely with me for why Christian girls couldn't wear bikinis around me, and it makes me uncomfortable...

That's disturbing. But regardless of it being disturbing or not, I think your analysis appears very accurate, so looks like I may just have to face some facts here (still don't like it).

But then, that would bring us back full circle to the teenage boys I was referencing. I certainly should need to catch a grip at my age, but teenage boys in the grips of testosterone? You honestly think the burden should rest entirely on them to deal their lusts, and girls should be free to run around half naked so long as their intentions are not to seduce? I mean that's just it. A lot of girls have no idea just how alluring they are to boys to begin with, even when they're not even trying to be.

 

[stealthsaint]

Some of them actually may. Just don't confuse them with everybody.

cannot find how to contact your request other than this way. There is a move of Lord Spirit moving contagiously upon the earth through "the last reformation" is possibly what you were referring to. People stepping out in faith to heal and use healing as proof of the power of LOVE (GOD) to build His KINGdom of LOVE on earth as it IS NOW ALSO ON EARTH. ie.as it WAS in ONLY heaven. "i am" part of that movement in Kelowna B.C. healing wherever I go during the day. Lord has given me a unique spin on how He works through me. Email if you wish to stealthsaint@gmail.com.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I'm not sure I understand the full implications of what you say Matt. Are you suggesting that seeking pleasures of various kinds are not "of this world?"

Yes, "pleasure" is not inherently bad. Pleasure seems to have this weird connotation attached to it because it's often use in the context of sex or "guilty pleasures". When in reality, that's really not what the word means. Biologically speaking, there's only two things you enjoy: serotonin and dopamine. These same chemicals are released when you have sex, eat your favorite food, watch your favorite movie, TV show, or sports team, read your favorite book, partake in your hobby, or do anything that you like doing.

Is the "world" in the scriptures distinct from "the flesh?"

Yes. The flesh that scripture talks about is not our biological bodies that release chemicals when we are doing things that we enjoy, it is talking about our sinful, selfish desires. The the idolatry, the greed, selfishness, and general sin that is in our society. The idea that these things are referring to our physical bodies and world comes from Greek philosophy, most specifically Gnosticism, not the Bible.

Is drug abuse, sex abuse, gambling, gluttony, and the excessive pursuit of our own interests OK?

No, but I'm not talking about the excessive, idolatrous pursuit.

Christ calls us to self-denial. Does that or does that not impact on the extent (and type) of passion we exert and experience in pursuing our personal interests?

Self-denial has never meant that you can only take care of your basic biological needs and then focus all of your time on God. There is nowhere in scripture that personal interests and hobbies are condemned.

But this is different from lifting it to a specific pursuit that absorbs our time and concentration diverting us from other things, including paying attention to God. This is idolatry.

You seem to be assuming that because something is not directly focusing on God means that it automatically is not. I thank God for my passions and interests, and I believe they are fully connected to who I will be forever. It also begs the question "What does it mean to pay attention to God?", does that you must constantly be must in Bible study and prayer? If so, then does mean that those that dedicate their lives to love and take care of the poor mean that they're idolizing the poor? If not, what does that mean exactly? To me, I do not think that just because something is not directly pay attention to God, doesn't mean they are not. "Whatever you do, do it for the glory of God." I know people, and I agree with their point that masturbation is celebtating their God-given sexuality and sexual pleasure.

 

[Monna]

Thank you Matt for those explanations.

 

[Hidden In Him]

cannot find how to contact your request other than this way. There is a move of Lord Spirit moving contagiously upon the earth through "the last reformation" is possibly what you were referring to. People stepping out in faith to heal and use healing as proof of the power of LOVE (GOD) to build His KINGdom of LOVE on earth as it IS NOW ALSO ON EARTH. ie.as it WAS in ONLY heaven. "i am" part of that movement in Kelowna B.C. healing wherever I go during the day. Lord has given me a unique spin on how He works through me. Email if you wish to stealthsaint@gmail.com.

Hey Buddy!

Yeah, isn't that weird? I noticed you were once on my followers list and vise versa, and then all of a sudden we were on neither's list, and I know I didn't change a thing. And I've seen more weird phenomenon take place like that at this Forum where you are concerned in the past.

Well, email is bad for me, because I get so buried. Not impossible but highly unrecommended, because I don't even check emails these days, unless I'm specifically looking for something.

If you can't get messaging fixed to converse with me privately, then we will need to create a public thread here and just use it as our private conversation.

And btw, I would really like to. I have a great spirit about that movement you are involved in. It appears to embody much of what I preach that we need to be returning to as the body of Christ. Plus, I'd like for you to keep me updated on what He is doing through you specifically.

Post me back here, or create a new public thread entitled "Stealth," and send me the link to it here.

Great hearing from you again. I was afraid I might have done something to lose you or something.

 

[hedrick]

Zeezee Pete's! I've meditated this principle for decades it would seem, and never have I seen or read it rightly divided that articulately. I always assumed the weakness of the brother needed to take precedence, and yet I always sensed that would place us at the mercy of the weak...\

It's certainly a concern that a few people with unjustified scruples could in effect bully the rest of the church.

But that's not the real concern here. This isn't an issue with the kids I know, because our church doesn't say anything about masturbation at all. Most of them probably don't even realize that many Christians think it's wrong.

But in CF I see many people, most commonly young people, who are tearing themselves apart over this issue. What are the obligations of "strong" in this case? I would certainly not want to get them to do something that they think is wrong. But I'm also afraid of the consequences of a continued losing battle over an issue that Jesus doesn't actually care about. Both for the effects of the losing battle, and for the distraction from things that actually do matter. I can just imagine Screwtape's uncle advising him "One of the best approaches with teenagers is to get them to focus on a battle they can't possibly win. It will both demoralize them, and get them to focus on themselves rather than on serving our Great Enemy."

 

[Hidden In Him]

It's certainly a concern that a few people with unjustified scruples could in effect bully the rest of the church.

But that's not the real concern here. This isn't an issue with the kids I know, because our church doesn't say anything about masturbation at all. Most of them probably don't even realize that many Christians think it's wrong.

But in CF I see many people, most commonly young people, who are tearing themselves apart over this issue. What are the obligations of "strong" in this case? I would certainly not want to get them to do something that they think is wrong. But I'm also afraid of the consequences of a continued losing battle over an issue that Jesus doesn't actually care about. Both for the effects of the losing battle, and for the distraction from things that actually do matter. I can just imagine Screwtape's uncle advising him "One of the best approaches with teenagers is to get them to focus on a battle they can't possibly win. It will both demoralize them, and get them to focus on themselves rather than on serving our Great Enemy."

I fully appreciate your answer, and in part certainly agree with it. But there was also a warning bell going off in my mind. You see, to me there is still always the issue of spiritual uncleanness lurking in the shadows, and the desire of demonic spirits to lead believers into lusts that bring them under terrible spiritual condemnation, for good reason, because of they gave themselves over to association with the wrong spirits.

Thus, in my mind the principle still also applies that "let him who thinks he stand be careful lest he falls." (1 Corinthians 10:11-12)

 

[hedrick]

I
Thus, in my mind the principle still also applies that "let him who thinks he stand be careful lest he falls." (1 Corinthians 10:11-12)

I'm not denying that there's a need for self-discipline. I'm saying that it should be over the right issues.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I'm not denying that there's a need for self-discipline. I'm saying that it should be over the right issues.

Ok. I suppose I can agree with that.

 

[Apex]

Zeezee Pete's! I've meditated this principle for decades it would seem, and never have I seen or read it rightly divided that articulately. I always assumed the weakness of the brother needed to take precedence, and yet I always sensed that would place us at the mercy of the weak...

And this brings me face to face with my own weakness. I don't like to think about it, but I would have to admit that the problem may rest primarily if not solely with me for why Christian girls couldn't wear bikinis around me, and it makes me uncomfortable...

That's disturbing. But regardless of it being disturbing or not, I think your analysis appears very accurate, so looks like I may just have to face some facts here (still don't like it).

I have to admit. I am impressed by your willingness to discuss these topics fairly and openly. It was difficult for me to come to this place in my own faith. I was extremely stubborn. I took great pride in being a fundamentalist Christian.

As for the passage in Romans, most inaccurately see this stumbling as one of sin, but it is actually a stumbling in faith. The religious conscience of a person is all important, for it determines his or her walk with God. Believers must be reasonably allowed to follow the Lord as they think best, even if that does not logically follow from biblical teaching. Once again, this principle fits current modern debates regarding movies, cards, dancing, modest clothing, and social drinking. Until the weak have the faith to engage in such activity (without self-judgment), they should never be talked into doing so.

These means two things: Do not blatantly flaunt your freedom in these matters when in the immediate company of weak Christians (such as at a church service or event) and do not put pressure on the weak to assent to your views. It is true that the faith of the weak is deficient, but God honors their conviction and expects them to live by it. The strong should understand that and honor their convictions. To force them to change could hurt them spiritually.

You honestly think the burden should rest entirely on them to deal their lusts, and girls should be free to run around half naked so long as their intentions are not to seduce? I mean that's just it. A lot of girls have no idea just how alluring they are to boys to begin with, even when they're not even trying to be.

EDIT: Your focus in on potential sin. The focus should instead be on protecting one's faith.

 

[Apex]

I can just imagine Screwtape's uncle advising him "One of the best approaches with teenagers is to get them to focus on a battle they can't possibly win. It will both demoralize them, and get them to focus on themselves rather than on serving our Great Enemy."

This is perfectly worded.

We can tell them the truth, but we cannot mock them for not believing it. I guess this would be where I suggest prayer.

 

[arensb]

What a shame, whatever it was replaced with don't seem to be working.

Are you implying that America isn't great again?

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Masturbation a mortal sin? That's a bit stiff!

 

[ClementofA]

On this site, occasionally there will be arguments on whether masturbation is a sin or not. I personally don't think masturbation is a sin. But I want to ask where did The idea that masturbation wrong come from?

There is a common belief in Christendom that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sin.

In 1 Corinthians 7 it says one should marry if he cannot control his sexual lusts:

8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Would Paul today advise young teen boys without "self-control" and who "burn with passion" to get married? If not, what are their other options? Fornication, masturbation, etc? It seems to me that he would probably recommend masturbation in our culture today. And not consider it a sin.

Even for older males the Apostle didn't address the question of what to do if one cannot find a wife. Or what to do with one's uncontrollable lusts in the time (months, years) leading up to finding a suitable wife. I assume he would have thought masturbation preferable to joining a harlot, which he called sinning against one's own body (1 Corinthians 6). Though it has been said that masturbation leads to blindness ;

What if it's a travelling businessman away from home & wife for days, weeks or months at a time? And while doing the deed he's thinking about his wife, or talking to her on the phone, or via video chat?

What are unmarried incarcerated Christians doing significant or life sentences supposed to do?

What was Paul's thorn in the flesh?

From what Paul says here it would be easy to conclude that an unmarried individual curbing one's lusts via autoeroticism would be preferable to doing it via sex in marriage:

1 Cor 7:28 But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this...32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

That the culture of Paul's day considered masturbation something only slaves did may explain why he never mentions the subject.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes. And I recall the Greek word for modesty being used of soldiers in occupied territory, like when a former French soldier was in territory now occupied by the NAZIs. Such a man would certainly NOT want to draw attention to himself, for fear of paying for it with his life. But this does not preclude a woman simply dressing decently, does it? I mean, running around in a burka, especially in this society, would actually be the opposite of modesty. You would actually be drawing attention to yourself, in a religious way.

The best description of what Paul describes is "eschew ostentation."

 

[RDKirk]

No. Because God gives us enough strength to be able to resist temptation. He never lets us be overwhelmed with temptation that we cannot overcome.

Well, actually it does not say we will always overcome, but that He provides a way out.

Sometimes we don't take the way out He has provided, and then find ourselves facing temptation we cannot overcome.

 

[RDKirk]

In today's Western society, yet it is.

It's less difficult to touch in certain other situations, such as when you're in a steady state of fear for your life. So circumstances definitely make a difference.

And Satan has the ability to affect your circumstances.