The Truth about Sex

[Tylyr]

Because I believe what they said ... once I studied the Bible for myself, it was clear that masturbation wasn't a sin and I could enjoy it and thank God for all the pleasure He created me to have.

So let me get your mindset straight.
You thank God that he delivered you from the teaching that masturbation is a sin because it caused you to feel false guilt and shame, once you studied the Bible for yourself, it was clear to you that masturbation wasn't a sin, and you could enjoy it and thank God for all the pleasure He created you to have.

Isn't this mindset the exact same mindset some Christians use to justify the morality of homosexual sex acts?
"I thank God that he delivered me from the teaching that homosexual sex acts are a sin because it caused me to feel false guilt and shame, once I studied the Bible for myself, it was clear to me that homosexual sex acts weren't a sin, and I could enjoy it and thank God for all the pleasure He created me to have."

What is the difference here?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Do you agree that this might sum up the totality of our disagreement?

It's a part of it, I suppose, although I certainly wouldn't say that you are speaking about "objective" morality. You have set up a subjective set of criteria that you have labeled as "objective"; however, you have done nothing (and can do nothing, for that matter) to demonstrate that there is anything "objective" whatsoever about the ethic that you propose.

 

[ken777]

I recently put together this video talking about the reasoning behind why certain sexual acts (such as homosexuality, masturbation, use of contraceptives, etc.) are immoral.
I also made a video answering some frequently asked questions about the first video, I'll link that below too!
Thoughts?

I found the videos very informative and mostly was in agreement.
What would you say to the couple who are told that it would be dangerous for the wife to have another child? NFP still carries a risk of pregnancy.

..

 

[Tylyr]

I found the videos very informative and mostly was in agreement.
What would you say to the couple who are told that it would be dangerous for the wife to have another child? NFP still carries a risk of pregnancy.

Thank you for the response!
And to answer your question; It is true that every birth control method carries the risk of pregnancy. Why does NFP stand out in the scenario you are purposing?

It's a part of it, I suppose, although I certainly wouldn't say that you are speaking about "objective" morality. You have set up a subjective set of criteria that you have labeled as "objective"; however, you have done nothing (and can do nothing, for that matter) to demonstrate that there is anything "objective" whatsoever about the ethic that you propose.

Why wouldn't you say I am talking objectively about morality? How are you defining "objective"?

 

[ken777]

Thank you for the response!
And to answer your question; It is true that every birth control method carries the risk of pregnancy. Why does NFP stand out in the scenario you are purposing?

I believe NFP is the right choice for a Christian couple but when the wife's life could be in danger if she falls preganant, what do you propose?

..

 

[Tylyr]

I believe NFP is the right choice for a Christian couple but when the wife's life could be in danger if she falls preganant, what do you propose?

..

That's a tough question. Generally speaking, if the couple is not open to life, the couple should not be having sexual intercourse. In other words, if the couple is not willing to become pregnant, they should not have sex.

So in this scenario if the wife's life is in danger if she were to get pregnant, I would assume that the couple is not willing to become pregnant. If this is the case, they should not engage in sexual intercourse.

But if the couple is open to becoming pregnant even though the wife's life is in danger, we have to ask the question; is it moral to have sexual relations when you know your spouse could potentially die as a result?
This is an incredibly tough question that I'm not sure I know the answer to. I would personally say that I would not risk it. Personally, I think I would abstain from sexual intercourse altogether if I knew my wife's life was at risk from it. Is there even a scenario where taking this risk could be moral? I'm honestly not sure.

What do you think?

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I am inclined to believe there is no scenario where taking this risk could be moral.

 

[ken777]

That's a tough question. Generally speaking, if the couple is not open to life, the couple should not be having sexual intercourse. In other words, if the couple is not willing to become pregnant, they should not have sex.

So in this scenario if the wife's life is in danger if she were to get pregnant, I would assume that the couple is not willing to become pregnant. If this is the case, they should not engage in sexual intercourse.

But if the couple is open to becoming pregnant even though the wife's life is in danger, we have to ask the question; is it moral to have sexual relations when you know your spouse could potentially die as a result?
This is an incredibly tough question that I'm not sure I know the answer to. I would personally say that I would not risk it. Personally, I think I would abstain from sexual intercourse altogether if I knew my wife's life was at risk from it. Is there even a scenario where taking this risk could be moral? I'm honestly not sure.

What do you think?

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I am inclined to believe there is no scenario where taking this risk could be moral.

The couple I know who were in this situation conceived via IVF using her egg & his sperm. Another woman (the husband's sister) carried the baby to full term and a safe delivery of a beautiful baby.

So many moral dilemmas involved here!!!

Would I have a heart transplant? No. Would I agree to a heart transplant for my child? Yes. I'm not sure what the connection is except that God has given surgeons gifts to help us and so why not use them?

.

 

[dayhiker]

So let me get your mindset straight.
You thank God that he delivered you from the teaching that masturbation is a sin because it caused you to feel false guilt and shame, once you studied the Bible for yourself, it was clear to you that masturbation wasn't a sin, and you could enjoy it and thank God for all the pleasure He created you to have.

Isn't this mindset the exact same mindset some Christians use to justify the morality of homosexual sex acts?
"I thank God that he delivered me from the teaching that homosexual sex acts are a sin because it caused me to feel false guilt and shame, once I studied the Bible for myself, it was clear to me that homosexual sex acts weren't a sin, and I could enjoy it and thank God for all the pleasure He created me to have."

What is the difference here?

Hi Tylyr,
You understand my position.
I don't see God saying anywhere that some logic is bed/evil so anything that follows that pattern is wrong. Do you have a Bible verse for that?
So I'd say homosexuality must stand or fall on the verses in the Bible on the topic. If there are no verses in the Bible then we go to Biblical principles such as do unto others has you would have them do unto you. Love your neighbor and what ever is not of faith is sin. I've known people that said it was sinful to go bowling or dancing or to play with cards. I don't see anything thing in the Bible that says so things are sinful. When I look at the general principles in the Bible I don't see anything there that says they are sinful either. So I'm not going to call then sinful.
So thankfully being led by the Holy Spirit it becomes easy to live in faith and not have to feel guilty when men try to make up rules and put them on me.

 

[Armoured]

I recently put together this video talking about the reasoning behind why certain sexual acts (such as homosexuality, masturbation, use of contraceptives, etc.) are immoral.
I also made a video answering some frequently asked questions about the first video, I'll link that below too!
Thoughts?

Could you give us a crib notes version, please?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Why wouldn't you say I am talking objectively about morality? How are you defining "objective"?

You aren't speaking "objectively" about morality because morality is not an objective principle, e.g., there is no transcendent morality beyond the subjectivity of ethical and moral decision making. Our moral consciousness is molded and shaped by the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the influences which are brought to bear upon our lives, our education, our experiences, and the effort and reflection that we put into crafting a moral framework for our lives. But this is as far as it goes. Even if we assume that there is an objective morality, the means to access the content of this morality is elusive; and even if somehow we were able to gain access to the content of this objective morality, its application in the outworking of personal and collective moral decision making would yet be indelibly marked and shaped (and inescapably distorted) by the subjectivity of mind.

 

[Tylyr]

Hi Tylyr,
I don't see God saying anywhere that some logic is bed/evil so anything that follows that pattern is wrong.

I, for one, do not believe God is illogical. God has given us the gift of logic as a grace we receive through faith. Faith and Logic are not at odds with each other, rather, they are in perfect harmony!

I do understand where you are coming from, because I dealt with this same issue you are dealing with right now (trying to discern whether masturbation is a sin our not). It was a very tough process, but if your reasoning for justifying a certain act is the same reasoning someone else justifies an act you know is immoral, logic would tell you that this is not a good reason to justify that specific act. Like I said this was a very tough discernment process for me, but at the end of it, I came out knowing for a fact that, objectively speaking, masturbation is an immoral act.

However, I must point out that there is a lot of truth in your reasoning though. "...the teaching that masturbation is a sin because it caused me to feel false guilt and shame". This is where the struggle comes in. This is why so many people want to morally justify the act of masturbation; because of all the feelings of false guilt and shame. But here is the thing, you are right when you say this is false guilt and shame, but you are not right when you say that masturbation is not a sin.
To understand this, we must understand the theology of addiction and habitual sin.
Masturbation can literally be addicting (you get addicted to the release of the chemical oxytocin in your brain). Because of this addictive nature, for some people, masturbation tends to be a habitual sin. In this state of being, we should not let ourselves be overtaken by feelings of guilt and shame. Are these actions objectively sinful? Yes, and we are right to feel guilt and shame, however, it is a mistake to let these feelings overtake us. It is absolutely essential that we know that God forgives us, and that He understands the state of our addiction, and by His grace He will always forgive us as long as we are moving in the right direction.
With this being understood, it is so much easier to accept the truth that masturbation is a sin. See, the devil likes to lead us into falsehood by making us feel that there is no other way but to justify the morality of sin. But we cannot base our faith on feelings, we must base our faith on logic. We must strive to win the battles against the devil in every way possible. The answer might not be easy, but it is essential; to not let the devil overcome us with feelings of guilt and shame, but to Trust in God's grace and power to forgive!

Now, this my humble advice, so you are certainly welcome to take it or leave it. But I hope you do consider it, and I hope this might help you in your own discernment process! My prayers go out to you!

Could you give us a crib notes version, please?

Sorry, I'm not sure I know what "crib notes" are, haha

You aren't speaking "objectively" about morality because morality is not an objective principle

I think this might be our fundamental point of disagreement then.
I believe morality can and needs to be spoken about objectively. Otherwise, we cannot judge actions based on their intrinsic moral value.
For example, I would say that the act of rape is objectively, intrinsically immoral. Under no circumstance can this act be justified as moral. Are you saying you wouldn't agree with this?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I think this might be our fundamental point of disagreement then.
I believe morality can and needs to be spoken about objectively. Otherwise, we cannot judge actions based on their intrinsic moral value.
For example, I would say that the act of rape is objectively, intrinsically immoral. Under no circumstance can this act be justified as moral. Are you saying you wouldn't agree with this?

Let's say that I do agree with you. That would suggest that we agree on what the definition of "rape" is. But who is defining that, beyond you, or me, or others that we have imbued (arbitrarily, at that) with the authority to define it? And what if our definitions disagree? Perhaps we agree that "rape" is "always and objectively immoral," but disagree on what rape actually is. Whose definition of this "objectively immoral" act will prevail? Based on the history of human moral development, it will be the one who has more power and influence. However, the fact that one definition is able--over time--to become entrenched in social constructs and even personal conscience does not mean that it is a reflection of an objective standard of "moral" behavior and/or feeling. It very well may be...but such an assertion and belief does not do anything in the way of demonstrating the actuality of it.

This, of course, just illustrates the murky nature of human morality and ethical reasoning. We do not start from objective moral principles and move to application. Rather, we begin with the subjectivity of mind and moral feeling and proceed to shape an attitude and environment which is conducive to those feelings.

 

[Tylyr]

Let's say that I do agree with you. That would suggest that we agree on what the definition of "rape" is. But who is defining that, beyond you, or me, or others that we have imbued (arbitrarily, at that) with the authority to define it? And what if our definitions disagree? Perhaps we agree that "rape" is "always and objectively immoral," but disagree on what rape actually is. Whose definition of this "objectively immoral" act will prevail? Based on the history of human moral development, it will be the one who has more power and influence. However, the fact that one definition is able--over time--to become entrenched in social constructs and even personal conscience does not mean that it is a reflection of an objective standard of "moral" behavior and/or feeling. It very well may be...but such an assertion and belief does not do anything in the way of demonstrating the actuality of it.

This, of course, just illustrates the murky nature of human morality and ethical reasoning. We do not start from objective moral principles and move to application. Rather, we begin with the subjectivity of mind and moral feeling and proceed to shape an attitude and environment which is conducive to those feelings.

Let's not talk about the definition of the word "rape". Let's talk about the action which our current definition of the word rape describes. Our current definition of the word "Rape" is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It doesn't matter what word we attribute to this action, rather, the action itself should be what we are talking about, not the word itself.

So, let me ask my first question in another way:
'I would say that the the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person is objectively, intrinsically immoral. Under no circumstance can the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person be justified as moral. Are you saying you wouldn't agree with this?'

 

[dayhiker]

I, for one, do not believe God is illogical. God has given us the gift of logic as a grace we receive through faith. Faith and Logic are not at odds with each other, rather, they are in perfect harmony!

I do understand where you are coming from, because I dealt with this same issue you are dealing with right now (trying to discern whether masturbation is a sin our not). It was a very tough process, but if your reasoning for justifying a certain act is the same reasoning someone else justifies an act you know is immoral, logic would tell you that this is not a good reason to justify that specific act. Like I said this was a very tough discernment process for me, but at the end of it, I came out knowing for a fact that, objectively speaking, masturbation is an immoral act.

However, I must point out that there is a lot of truth in your reasoning though. "...the teaching that masturbation is a sin because it caused me to feel false guilt and shame". This is where the struggle comes in. This is why so many people want to morally justify the act of masturbation; because of all the feelings of false guilt and shame. But here is the thing, you are right when you say this is false guilt and shame, but you are not right when you say that masturbation is not a sin.
To understand this, we must understand the theology of addiction and habitual sin.
Masturbation can literally be addicting (you get addicted to the release of the chemical oxytocin in your brain). Because of this addictive nature, for some people, masturbation tends to be a habitual sin. In this state of being, we should not let ourselves be overtaken by feelings of guilt and shame. Are these actions objectively sinful? Yes, and we are right to feel guilt and shame, however, it is a mistake to let these feelings overtake us. It is absolutely essential that we know that God forgives us, and that He understands the state of our addiction, and by His grace He will always forgive us as long as we are moving in the right direction.
With this being understood, it is so much easier to accept the truth that masturbation is a sin. See, the devil likes to lead us into falsehood by making us feel that there is no other way but to justify the morality of sin. But we cannot base our faith on feelings, we must base our faith on logic. We must strive to win the battles against the devil in every way possible. The answer might not be easy, but it is essential; to not let the devil overcome us with feelings of guilt and shame, but to Trust in God's grace and power to forgive!

Now, this my humble advice, so you are certainly welcome to take it or leave it. But I hope you do consider it, and I hope this might help you in your own discernment process! My prayers go out to you!

I agree that God is logical and that faith and logic aren't in conflict with each other. I have taken many science college courses and never found one that taught that God was illogical.
I do see your comments as humble.

I don't justify masturbation. Its clear that God's Word never says its sinful to touch. So I don't either.

I was never addicted to masturbation. Also I've never meet a person who was. I'd say your understanding of of addiction and the desire to touch is way off base.
Its clear to me that God created us to enjoy our sexuality, he turns it on big time when we hit puberty. We touch not because of good feelings or oxytocin but because God created that desire within us. If God didn't create that desire then we have to say puberty is something Satan was able to do. But I don't know of any theology that has any bases to even day Satan can create anything let alone change God very good creation. Partially guys touch because the sperm builds up and cause us to be excited at anything even hinting of sexuality.

You might want to read a book like Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari that goes over the studies that show that 90% of people who do drugs don't get addicted.

Clearly God forgives ever sin both in this world and the next as Jesus said, except one. That clearly isn't masturbation. So I'd make your comments about forgiveness even stronger.
1 Cor.1-:31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

 

[Tylyr]

Its clear to me that God created us to enjoy our sexuality, he turns it on big time when we hit puberty. We touch not because of good feelings or oxytocin but because God created that desire within us. If God didn't create that desire then we have to say puberty is something Satan was able to do. But I don't know of any theology that has any bases to even day Satan can create anything let alone change God very good creation. Partially guys touch because the sperm builds up and cause us to be excited at anything even hinting of sexuality.

I agree with a lot of what you said. I especially agree when you said "God created that desire within us", however, I do not agree when you say "we touch because God created that desire within us".

Yes, sexual desire is good, but in my opinion, I think it makes more theological sense to say that 'God created sexual desire within us', and that 'we get married and have sexual intercourse with our spouse because God created that desire within us'.

What you are saying is that God gave us sexual desire for the purpose of masturbation; but this is supported nowhere in the Bible, and in my opinion, theologically doesn't even make sense.
What I am saying is that God gave us sexual desire for the purpose of sexual relations with our spouse; and in my opinion, Scripture supports this concept very well, and is theologically sound.

1 Cor.1-:31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

I believe it is not possible to "touch for the glory of God".

Now, I do believe you are wrong about the morality of masturbation, but I do respect your opinion. We'll probably have to agree to disagree, and that is alright.

I'll keep you in my prayers! Hopefully you can keep me in yours as well!

 

[ken777]

I agree with a lot of what you said. I especially agree when you said "God created that desire within us", however, I do not agree when you say "we touch because God created that desire within us".

Yes, sexual desire is good, but in my opinion, I think it makes more theological sense to say that 'God created sexual desire within us', and that 'we get married and have sexual intercourse with our spouse because God created that desire within us'.

What you are saying is that God gave us sexual desire for the purpose of masturbation; but this is supported nowhere in the Bible, and in my opinion, theologically doesn't even make sense.
What I am saying is that God gave us sexual desire for the purpose of sexual relations with our spouse; and in my opinion, Scripture supports this concept very well, and is theologically sound.


I believe it is not possible to "touch for the glory of God".

Now, I do believe you are wrong about the morality of masturbation, but I do respect your opinion. We'll probably have to agree to disagree, and that is alright.

I'll keep you in my prayers! Hopefully you can keep me in yours as well!

In Thessalonians 4:3-5 Paul writes:

"It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God"

Without going into explicit detail Paul seems to cover all the bases of sexual immorality. He does acknowledge that it is more difficult for some than others
"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."​

 

[dayhiker]

Yes, I think we will disagree no matter how much we talk about this.

I do agree that our sexual desire fits really nicely with marriage. But I don't see the Bible or creation saying each thing has one purpose and anything outside that purpose is sinful. To me that idea goes back to Aristotle and his idea of matter and form. Its clear to me that the history of innovation shows us that things don't have one form and by finding new ways to use the same thing we have created all of our current tool and toys. If we stick with things only have one form, I think we would be more like the Amish that have tried to stick with things as they were in the 1800s. But of course can't quite do that no matter how hard they try.

So sexual intercourse is clearly in mind when God creates us and all of creation to reproduce. Yet almost everyone still likes to touch when married and their spouse is also interested in making love with them. So I've been masturbating to the glory of God for 40 years now.

I agree with a lot of what you said. I especially agree when you said "God created that desire within us", however, I do not agree when you say "we touch because God created that desire within us".

Yes, sexual desire is good, but in my opinion, I think it makes more theological sense to say that 'God created sexual desire within us', and that 'we get married and have sexual intercourse with our spouse because God created that desire within us'.

What you are saying is that God gave us sexual desire for the purpose of masturbation; but this is supported nowhere in the Bible, and in my opinion, theologically doesn't even make sense.
What I am saying is that God gave us sexual desire for the purpose of sexual relations with our spouse; and in my opinion, Scripture supports this concept very well, and is theologically sound.


I believe it is not possible to "touch for the glory of God".

Now, I do believe you are wrong about the morality of masturbation, but I do respect your opinion. We'll probably have to agree to disagree, and that is alright.

I'll keep you in my prayers! Hopefully you can keep me in yours as well!

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Let's not talk about the definition of the word "rape". Let's talk about the action which our current definition of the word rape describes. Our current definition of the word "Rape" is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It doesn't matter what word we attribute to this action, rather, the action itself should be what we are talking about, not the word itself.

You said not to talk about the definition of the word "rape", but to instead focus on the action. However, in describing the action, you propose...another definition (well, several, actually...)! By switching to "describing an action", you actually raise more definitional questions than were present before.

'I would say that the the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person is objectively, intrinsically immoral. Under no circumstance can the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person be justified as moral. Are you saying you wouldn't agree with this?'

I couldn't say one way or the other, given that you have raised more questions of definition than were at play before.

 

[xpower]

"Rape" is someone forcing someone else to engage in intercourse with them without there consent through the use of physical Force and violence. Is this a good enough definition?

 

[dayhiker]

To me arguing over the definition of rape is a way to avoid saying if its right or wrong.
To me rape is sin and indeed if a person pressure the other to have sex when they really aren't interested in having sex is sin.