Sirach on Masturbation
Rae Stabosz
as an1...@anon.penet.fi, or through me. ]
Permit me, dear friends, to respond to some of the allegations that the
Bible is not clear on masturbation, first.
Despite a person's quote from the Book of Sirach it was said on
s.r.c.bible-study that still this was not clear. Let me thus bring the
quote up again and ask people what they think it means if not masturbation.
Sirach 23:16-18 [NAB]
Two types of men multiply sins, a third draws down wrath;
For burning passion is a blazing fire,
not to be quenched till it burns itself out:
A man given to sins of the flesh,
who never stops until the fire breaks forth;
The rake to whom all bread is sweet
and who is never through till he dies;
And the man who dishonors his marriage bed
and says to himself "Who can see me? ...
The first line introduces this section. It promises to discuss three
different kinds of sinners, the first two (merely?) multiplying sins, and
the last drawing down wrath. The next line is clearly an explication
of the introduction. I will come to it later. After that come the three
sinners. The second one is the rake and the third is surely clearly the
adulterer. So who is the first one? I claim it is the masturbator.
If someone does not think so then he should give an alternate explanation
of who the first sinner is. The first sin is distinct from the rakeishness
of the second and the adultery of the third. We read the this sinner
"never stops until the fire breaks forth." We are not here talking about
licit sexual relations, for then this would not be describing a sin. We
are not talking of any form of sexual activity with a person of the opposite
sex, because those are carefully covered by the other two sins. We are
not talking about bestiality or homosexuality--the writer would have
expressed even more disgust with that, and the sin in question would
have been recognizable as such. (Though bestiality and homosexuality might
have been intended to be covered under the "all bread is sweet").
What sexual activity is left? Surely only masturbation. When you
eliminate the impossible what remains must be true. And the description
fits the act perfectly: "never stops until the fire breaks forth."
Because the description (and, the introductory line indicates we are
talking about specific sins) fits the act of masturbation, we would have
to have a very strong and specific idea as to what the writer was speaking
of if we rejected this interpretation.
Now, let me recall the explication:
For burning passion is a blazing fire,
not to be quenched till it burns itself out:
This certainly fits with the interpretation. Either here we have a command
not to quench (e.g. by masturbation) the burning passion, or else we simply
have a strong warning of the danger of arousing the passion because it is
a blazing fire.
Thus far Sirach 23:16-18.
- - - -
As someone rightly pointed out, masturbation is often accompanied by fantasies
which are against Jesus Christ's command not to look lustfully. Even if it be
not accompanied by them, the one performing the act lays himself more open to
such fantasies and in effect leads himself into the temptation of them coming.
But we ought to avoid circumstances under which we are sexually tempted, if
we can in charity avoid them.
(Sirach warns against looking too much at beautiful women, and our Lord Himself
said that if our eye causes us to sin we should cast it out, something that
should probably be applied to tempting situations--for unless charity forces us
into such a situation it is presumptuous and proud to think we will survive
the temptation.)
It was said that it is better to commit the solitary act of masturbation than
to rape or engage in other evil acts causing hurt to another. But, this
statement of theirs is only valid provided they can be sure the masturbation
is not a sin since St Paul said we are not like those who do evil that good
may come of it. Furthermore, common sense says that if a person has the
moral strength to avoid masturbation, certainly he will have the moral
strength to avoid pedophily or rape! (If someone is not capable of resisting
the temptation to rape, how will he resist the temptation to masturbate?)
In point of fact, everyone (we may make an exception for people who are
clinically mentally ill and perhaps not responsible for their actions) can
withstand the temptation to rape. And, if masturbation be acknowledged a
sin, it can be resisted since St Paul writes that for every temptation we
receive a grace from God to withstand it.
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of man's sexual nature here.
There seems to be this strange idea that if a man lives without sexual
activity he will be forced to engage in some illicitly. But this is
not so. Sex is not like food or air! While one deprived of food
may go insane and steal the food without being morally responsible for
it, except in cases of serious preexisting clinical mental problems,
lack of sex will not deprive him of moral responsibility for his actions.
It is not true, either, that masturbation eases the sexual desires.
While on a short time scale of a day or two it may ease them, these
desires will return, unweakened. It is like with a drug. While
taking it may reduce the craving temporarily, the craving comes back,
stronger. To weaken the craving over the long run it is necessary
to stop taking the drug. The more one engages in the act, the more
one's sexual desires are increased. In fact, because the sexual
desires increase through their exercise, this renders it even more
likely that such a person would be led into other sins, such
as adultery or even perhaps rape.
The masturbation produces damage in relations with the opposite sex.
Because sexual desires are increased in the long run by the act, one's
relations with persons to whom one is not married but to whom one is
physically attracted will be marred by impure thoughts and temptations
more than they otherwise would. Both persons suffer in this (i.e.
the masturbator and the person he is relating to.)
In those persons who marry at some point in their lives, the acts of
masturbation (whether done before, or after the marriage) weaken the
delicate bond of love. By allowing sexual pleasure to come from
occasions other than intercourse with his wife the masturbator robs
the intercourse with his wife of some of its depth of meaning. The
relationship does suffer. The meaning of this pleasure is no longer
inseparably attached with the bond between man and woman, and the bond
is hence weaker. How much weaker? I don't know, but nonetheless it
is wrong to do a small evil (and in this case we are talking of a
definite evil: the wife suffers because of a weaker bond, perhaps
only a little and imperceptibly, but nonetheless really) to any
person. Nor indeed is it permissible to do a smaller evil that a
greater may be prevented. In any case, the masturbative act does
not cause any good other than the possible good of the pleasure.
Certainly it causes no good to any person other than oneself. It
is hence a selfish act and when a selfish act causes some pain to
someone--however small!--it must not be done, since we are called
to love our neighbours as Christ loved them.
In those persons who are not called to marriage, but are instead
able to follow what Christ said about celibacy (i.e. let those
keep it who can keep it) the act is perhaps even more damaging.
Because such persons have their chastity pledged to God. The
sexual act which they are foregoing out of the love of God is
by the masturbative act robbed of some of its meaning (robbed
of the meaning of it being inexorably attached to the bond
between man and woman, as above). As such, the beauty of their
relationship with God which is deeply affected by their
abstinence from marriage is robbed of some of its meaning.
In such persons, then, the sin is directly against God as
opposed to being directly against one's spouse.
Still, because it is God Who forbids this act (through Scripture
as above, certainly throughout the Christian tradition--you will surely
not find one early Christian writer who supported this act) then we
better abstain from it. Even if we do not ourselves see what is wrong
with it, we know that before God's wisdom all that we know is foolishness.
God knows human relationships infinitely better than we do; He knows
what harms relationships, what harms people physically, psychologically
and spiritually. We are certainly not capable of saying that it is
certain that the masturbative act does not cause psychological or
spiritual damage. (Indeed, it does cause spiritual damage by redirecting
energies, very powerful and deep energies, into a selfish act, while
the spiritual energy could instead be directed into the love of God
causing much good.) And, if God says the act is wrong we should be
thankful for the fact that we know to abstain from it.
In fact, even if we are not 100% certain that God forbids the act in Sirach
or elsewhere in His word, because of the clear fact that the act is essentially
a selfish one with no good flowing out of it, and because certainly God never
counsels the act, then, not being 100% certain that God permits the act, we
should stay on the safe side and abstain from it. Any pleasure is only
personal bodily pleasure while the harm may be psychological, spiritual and/or
directed at other persons. As Christians we should count the spiritual as
much more important than the bodily, and if there is a chance of the latter's
pleasure causing harm to the former, and the act is not an act of charity
(perhaps this disclaimer is not needed, but that is another issue) then we
must abstain.
Can a person say with 100% certainity that Sirach does not forbid the act?
That there will be no spiritual damage from it (not necessarily immediate)?
Oh, I should say that I speak of "man" as the masturbator here. Certainly
the act will be forbidden to women, too, though the psychological and
spiritual evils resulting from the act may be different.
Yours in Christ,
"Notzri"
an1...@anon.penet.fi
VAA...@ukcc.uky.edu
Rae Stabosz <sta...@bach.udel.edu> writes:
>[ This is posted anonymously on behalf of a friend. You can reach him
> as an1...@anon.penet.fi, or through me. ]
>
>Permit me, dear friends, to respond to some of the allegations that the
>Bible is not clear on masturbation, first.
>
>Despite a person's quote from the Book of Sirach it was said on
>s.r.c.bible-study that still this was not clear. Let me thus bring the
>quote up again and ask people what they think it means if not masturbation.
>
OK, I'm not flaming but opening myself up for a little flaming. This rather
lengthy post is a fine example of Christian posturing. Does the scripture
in question say "masturbation," "spill your seed," or anything remotely
specific enough to describe the act of masturbation? No. So now we have
this little guessing game. One person says "Hmmm, it must mean so and so."
I can't figure out why God would put riddles in the Bible? Is God is a
caring and compassionate God, why would he try to trick His people into
Sin, i.e. if masturbation was one of the subjects of that passage, why
didn't He just say so (that is asumming that you believe every word in
the Bible is God inspired - which is a another questionable issue)?
OK, back to the guessing game. If this person who is interpreting
the passage (a fictious person not the writer of the previous post) a
person with power in a given Church structure, he (only modern liberal
Churches of which I am associated grant women equality) will be able to
add his own slant to the scripture passage. For example, if he is
an anti-porn person, he will most surely say that this piece of scripture
not only condemns masturbation, but also the pornography industry for
spreading material that is known to be used during masturbation. Second,
if this person is a hell-fire preacher, he will most certainly tell you
that because of this scripture, the Bible condemned the act and the
masturbator (sp?), assuring a free ride to Hell unless repentance is
made. Am I stretching these examples? Perhaps a bit, but I want someone
to prove to me that everything a person thinks the Bible says is exactly
what the Bible means. You can't unless you are God!
>Still, because it is God Who forbids this act (through Scripture
>as above, certainly throughout the Christian tradition--you will surely
>not find one early Christian writer who supported this act) then we
>better abstain from it.
Notice, how the writer who earlier was trying to argue that the passage
was talking about masturbation, now tells us we better not do it 'cause
said not to? Finally, Christian tradition has changed though the years.
At one point in history, it was tradition to execute those people who
would not convert.Sorry to upset anyone,
Rick Marquardt
TORENVLIET GERARD LAWRENS
condemns masturbation. Making this into a good sermon, which would make
my pastor proud:
1. We may not sin against any of the ten commandments without deserving
eternal condemnation.
2. You shall not commit adultery is one of the ten commandments (Ex. 20).
3. You are committing adultery when you look upon, or think lustfully of
a person of the opposite sex. See Mat. 5:27-28:
You have heard that it was said, you shall not commit adultery;
but I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her
has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
5. You generally have lustful thoughts about a person of the opposite sex
during masturbation.
6. So you are committing adultery during masturbation.
7. Masturbation is therefore condemned.
(Sorry, not a sermon, more like a syllogism)
Regards,
Gerard
<tor...@ecf.toronto.edu>
Richard Steinberger
had to say about the Bible & masturbation:
2. You shall not commit adultery is one of the ten commandments (Ex. 20).
5. You generally have lustful thoughts about a person of the opposite sex
during masturbation.
6. So you are committing adultery during masturbation.
7. Masturbation is therefore condemned.
Life is not nearly as simple as Biblical literalists claim. It's
surprinsing torenvl isn't claiming (male) masturbation is against
God's will because the sperm do die and one's participation in the
act of masturbation is therefore an act of murder. Another
commandment violated!
This kind of logic is at best pathetic. It is basically a self-serving
hypocritical (I bet the author has masturbated!) pile of shit. Virtually
every teenager and many adults masturbate. This kind of argument is
designed to make them feel bad about themselves. As if GOD has time
to worry about the harmless private acts of physically mature people.
Furthermore, to use the Bible as a source of authority in such a matter
as masturbation is at best highly questionable. Why? Because any
Biblical passage on masturbation is likely to be 2 - 4 thousand
years old and the authors had a particular axe to grind for their
compemporaneous audience.
>Making this into a good sermon, which would make my pastor proud.
Any pastor that would be proud of a sermon against masturbation ought to
know that he (it's likely to be a man, isn't it) is likely to severely
damage the self-image of any in his congregation that have the
misfortune to believe him!
Listen to the Bible on ethics, morality, purpose and values. Ignore
the pious crap about masturbation.
M. Jones
TORENVLIET GERARD LAWRENS
Subject: Re: Sirach on Masturbation
Date: 15 Apr 93 18:21:05 GMT
Lawrens wrote, "
1. We may not sin against any of the ten commandments without deserving
eternal condemnation."
I can't let this go uncommented...
The whole point (as far as I can see) of Christianity is that in God's
eye we are condemned by the Law due to our failure to live up to it;
however, in Jesus, that curse of the law was crucfied so that we might
be seen as whole in our Father's eyes. As Paul puts in Colossians 2 (v13-14):
"He forgave us all our sines having cancelled the written code with its
regulations that was againset us and stood opposed to us; he took it away,
nailing to the cross".
We as Christians, no longer live in condemnation; this is the glory of
the Gospel.
Matt.
Barry Johnson
So, following the above logic, it is a sin to be sexually attracted to
someone? Also following the above logic, are you saying that it is
sinfull to be sexually attracted to you fiance'? Can you in this
context define lustfull? You define adultry in terms that you don't
cleary explain.
I think your logic is pushing it a bit. You can commit murder while
driving a car. Are you therefore condemned for driving?
Barry...
--
Personal Theory: Socks are the larval form of wire coat-hangers.
Barry Johnson, Clemson University, CTS. cyc...@hubcap.clemson.edu
TORENVLIET GERARD LAWRENS
>
>So, following the above logic, it is a sin to be sexually attracted to
>someone? Also following the above logic, are you saying that it is
>sinfull to be sexually attracted to you fiance'? Can you in this
>context define lustfull? You define adultry in terms that you don't
>cleary explain.
Although it is understandable to be sexually attracted to someone, if we
were to cut to the quick, it is not the right way to pursue a relationship.
Biblical love involves a deep caring for a person, their welfare, and in
everything that they do. It does not involve how good a person is in bed.
So, being sexually attracted to your fiancee is also not right -- understand-
able, but not right. We should love our partners for their person, not their
body.
Having to worry about all of this "lusting" is a product of our human nature.
We are totally depraved and have to fight every day of our lives against the
tendancies of our flesh.
Certain types of lust are understandable. Masturbation is understandable.
Understandability does not make right.
Like I said before...no one ever said that living the life of a Christian was
easy.
Regards,
Gerard
TORENVLIET GERARD LAWRENS
>someone? Also following the above logic, are you saying that it is
>sinfull to be sexually attracted to you fiance'? Can you in this
>context define lustfull? You define adultry in terms that you don't
>cleary explain.
Although it is understandable to be sexually attracted to someone, if we
TORENVLIET GERARD LAWRENS
>
>1. We may not sin against any of the ten commandments without deserving
> eternal condemnation."
>
>eye we are condemned by the Law due to our failure to live up to it;
>however, in Jesus, that curse of the law was crucfied so that we might
>be seen as whole in our Father's eyes. As Paul puts in Colossians 2 (v13-14):
Although, soli Deo gloria, and through Christ, we no longer have to fear
condemnation as long as we believe in God and accept Him into our lives,
yet we can never ignore the fact that we all DESERVE condemnation.
And that is the glory of the gospel. We all deserve condemnation, but God
has chosen to overlook how deserving some are of eternal condemnation and
grant them instead eternal life.
Ex. 33:19: "I [the LORD] will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you,
and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy
upon who I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion.
Some will receive God's mercy...others will be condemned.
I restate: we all deserve condemnation...God saves some from this.
Yours in Christ,
Gerard
TORENVLIET GERARD LAWRENS
>
>This kind of logic is at best pathetic. It is basically a self-serving
>hypocritical (I bet the author has masturbated!) pile of shit. Virtually
>every teenager and many adults masturbate. This kind of argument is
>designed to make them feel bad about themselves. As if GOD has time
>to worry about the harmless private acts of physically mature people.
I really don't understand how you find that my opinions are self-serving.
I understand the statistics on masturbation, and realize it is difficult to
abstain. However, saying that this command makes people feel bad about them-
selves is absurd. It makes people feel as bad about themselves as having to
deny themselves premarital sex. Perhaps you will counter that this is a sily
command as well, but they are all part of the Ten Commandments, and more
importantly, GOD's Commandments.
No one ever said being a Christian and living a life worthy of a Christian
was easy.
>Furthermore, to use the Bible as a source of authority in such a matter
>as masturbation is at best highly questionable. Why? Because any
>Biblical passage on masturbation is likely to be 2 - 4 thousand
>years old and the authors had a particular axe to grind for their
>compemporaneous audience.
Even though the Bible is 2000-4000 years old, it is infallible and immutable.
Christ did not abolish any of the moral code of the old testament (included
in that is the command to not commit adultery), but rather expanded on it to
give me my ammunition to say that masturbation is unbiblical.
If you masturbate your salvation is not at stake, however. This is no
greater (or no less) of a commandment than any of the others.
BTW...this is listening to the bible as regards morality.
Regards,
Gerard
Eric G. Yankowitz
>In article <C5L18...@spss.com> cyc...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Barry Johnson) writes:
>>
>>So, following the above logic, it is a sin to be sexually attracted to
>>someone? Also following the above logic, are you saying that it is
>>sinfull to be sexually attracted to you fiance'? Can you in this
>>context define lustfull? You define adultry in terms that you don't
>>cleary explain.
>
>Although it is understandable to be sexually attracted to someone, if we
>were to cut to the quick, it is not the right way to pursue a relationship.
>Biblical love involves a deep caring for a person, their welfare, and in
>everything that they do. It does not involve how good a person is in bed.
>So, being sexually attracted to your fiancee is also not right -- understand-
>able, but not right. We should love our partners for their person, not their
>body.
>
find the idea of souls existing apart from the body in scripture this is more
of a gnostic/greek idea. Remember Plato's Realm of Ideas, and how that miserable
body of ours keeps us from knowing the truth. hmm...
Rather if we look at the Genesis account we find that man is formed from the
dust of the ground. I don't think God formed his "spiritual soul" from dust.
rather this passage seems to equate man with his body. My point is I don't
think it is wrong to be sexually attracted to your fiancee because I don't
think her body is separate from herself. It is a part of herself just like her
mind and emotions are.
Secondly, We find sexual attraction in Song of Songs, and this seems to occur
before the marriage of the lover and the beloved. Neither do I believe we would
say that Christ is not attracted to his 'Bride' yet the wedding feast has not
yet taken place.
>Having to worry about all of this "lusting" is a product of our human nature.
>We are totally depraved and have to fight every day of our lives against the
>tendancies of our flesh.
>
Further I don't believe Jesus is equating "lust" with mere sexual attraction
or even sexual temptation. If that were true each time were tempted that would
mean we're sinning. Even the perfect Human, Christ, was tempted (in the
desert). And the Author of Hebrews clearly states Christ was tempted in all
thing (Heb 4:15, 2:18). This would seem to imply that Christ was sexual tempted
at one time or other. To have not have been so, would not have been human. It is
a major struggle we humans have, for Christ to have not faced such a thing
would seem to me to have made him less than a man. What made Christ perfect was
his obedience to the Father not so much he was ontologically free from
temptation because he was God. (Heb 2:10, 5:8-9) To say that Christ was not
tempted would seem to me to be an attack at his qualifications as a
high priest.
Personally, while our sexuality may have been pervert, I find very little
evidence that sex or sexual attraction is sin. What we do with it shows forth
our sinfulness.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? / \ This Side Eric G. Yankowitz
Because. | Up egya...@wheaton.wheaton.edu
Oh..Ok :) | Please Eric G. Yankowitz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gib
>In article <C5L18...@spss.com> cyc...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Barry Johnson) writes:
>>
>>So, following the above logic, it is a sin to be sexually attracted to
>>someone? Also following the above logic, are you saying that it is
>>sinfull to be sexually attracted to you fiance'? Can you in this
>>context define lustfull? You define adultry in terms that you don't
>>cleary explain.
>
>Although it is understandable to be sexually attracted to someone, if we
>were to cut to the quick, it is not the right way to pursue a relationship.
>So, being sexually attracted to your fiancee is also not right -- understand-
>able, but not right. We should love our partners for their person, not their
>body.
Well, I believe that the desires God gave us are not
necessarily "wrong-" We do not have such a nature that we can prevent
immediate reactions and impulses- I believe that it is how we RESPOND
to these impulses that defines "right" and "wrong." For example,
seeing someone walk by and feeling a sudden attraction for him/her
would not be sinful (a delineation I prefer to "right" and "wrong")-
you could not help but feel that way, and, in fact, it is a good thing
that you have those desires- part of the joy of the unity of marriage
is derived from sexual excitement. However, if you were to harbor
those thoughts in your heart, and fantasize about what a beautiful
person you just saw, or if your to take action according to your
impulses and let those impulses dictate what you do, then I believe
that you have indeed "crossed the line" to sin.
>We are totally depraved and have to fight every day of our lives against the
>tendancies of our flesh.
While I agree in part, I also believe that I am now dead to
sin and alive unto God! By giving HIM control of ourselves, we avoid
the temptation to twist what God has given us as holy to our own
perverse pleasures.
>Certain types of lust are understandable. Masturbation is understandable.
>Understandability does not make right.
I think that there need to be two distinctions made here. The
first depends on whether or not you define "lust" as natural
tendencies of attraction, or unnatural fixation on our surrender to
those natural tendencies outside the context in which they have been
given to us to be used in. I don't want to put words in your mouth
and contradict you if we're saying the same thing, so I'll just give
my own 2 cents worth... I define lust not as the latter, and therefore
categorize it as a sin. I don't, however, think that the first
definition would describes a sin- an analogy: I'm taking a test and I
get toa tough question. I realize that I can look at someone else's
paper to get the answer, but I don't. There I had an impulse to sin, but I
controlled that impulse. Do you agree that I did not sin? I think
that the same applies for lust. You can have an impulse to start
thinking or acting in ways that would be contrary to God's will, but that
impulse, though it is a thought, is distinct from a conscious thought
or choice and NOT sinful (or "wrong" if that's how you mean it).
I think this again may be a matter of semantics (as is my
question about right and wrong or sinful and not sinful), but while
understandability does not make something write, it gives no
evidence that something is WRONG, either. Either way, I would
disagree that from a Christian standpoint, masturbation is any more
understandable than anything else that is contradictory to God's Will
for our lives. Neither is lust, in fact, where lust involves a
conscious choice to diverge in thought or practice from His Will.
>Like I said before...no one ever said that living the life of a Christian was
>easy.
Well, amen to that!
>Regards,
>Gerard
Regards also,
Chris
ps- I'd be very grateful to hear other points of view as well!
Thanks!!
:)
RICARDO FLAVIO ROMAN-CARBAJAL
hey guys, you are really selfist, let's see:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We may not sin against any of the ten commandments without deserving
eternal condemnation.
Regards,
Gerard
<tor...@ecf.toronto.edu>
--------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to the Bible on ethics, morality, purpose and values. Ignore
the pious crap about masturbation.
r...@updike.sri.com
------------------------------------------------------
"He forgave us all our sines having cancelled the written code with its
regulations that was againset us and stood opposed to us; he took it away,
nailing to the cross".
We as Christians, no longer live in condemnation; this is the glory of
the Gospel.
Matt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, following the above logic, it is a sin to be sexually attracted to
someone? Also following the above logic, are you saying that it is
sinfull to be sexually attracted to you fiance'? Can you in this
context define lustfull? You define adultry in terms that you don't
cleary explain.
I think your logic is pushing it a bit. You can commit murder while
driving a car. Are you therefore condemned for driving?
Barry...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, being sexually attracted to your fiancee is also not right -- understand-
able, but not right.
Regards,
Gerard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
well my English is not exactly amazing, but try to undertand me eh?
Sex, my dear brothers and sisters needs Two,male and female, that was the
way that God bless,and involves also two persons who loves each other
physicaly and spiritualy, If I like her legs , it's OK, and if
she likes my back it's Ok, If I like her mind, cool!, If she loves how I
preach terrific! both meanings are linked, don't be naive, thinking like ion
the middle ages.
You are limiting love (eros) and separating it from sex, sex-love are a
unit, Our modern society divided them, when you have sex you are beeing one
phisicaly and spiritualy with your partner, that's what bible says,
Masturbation is wrong because gives a selfist meaning of sex, lead our
mind to see like sexual objets the oposite sex. Read any mediacal
book that you want and it will say that one of the problems with people who
practice very often masturbation , is that when they have to have real sex
with their partners they just look to satisfy their selfs,
sex, for two or for one, has psycological, physical and spiritual
implicationsso, if God made sex for two, female and male, why we should
spoild it been just selfist, think in women as you think in yourselfs, dont'
be machistasyou Know what I mean?
Ricardo
Jon Ogden
GERARD LAWRENS) wrote:
>
> Sorry to have to put it so bluntly, but it is fair to say that the Bible
> condemns masturbation. Making this into a good sermon, which would make
> my pastor proud:
>
> 1. We may not sin against any of the ten commandments without deserving
> eternal condemnation.
That is absolute rubbish as pointed out before.
> 2. You shall not commit adultery is one of the ten commandments (Ex. 20).
> 3. You are committing adultery when you look upon, or think lustfully of
> a person of the opposite sex. See Mat. 5:27-28:
>
> You have heard that it was said, you shall not commit adultery;
> but I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her
> has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Ok, I agree that to see someone and lust after them is wrong. But Christ
specifically said, "everyone who looks on a woman...." This implies that
this is someone you have seen, know, etc. Personally, I don't think it is
adulterous or wrong to imagine sex with a faceless person or with someone
who is a total creation of your imagination (someone you have never seen).
Now, this is tricky, because if one does dwell on thoughts of sex, etc. you
open yourself up to the possiblity of fanatasizing about someone that you
DO know.....So one must be careful about what one dwells on.
>
> 5. You generally have lustful thoughts about a person of the opposite sex
> during masturbation.
What if you DON'T fantasize during masturbation. Your argument assumes
that you do.
Let's look at the whole situation here. Folks (we are all adults here), I
know that in the male body, semen is constantly being manufactured. Only
so much can be stored. Therefore if semen is not released by sex or
masturbation, the body has to get rid of it somehow. When excess buildup
occurs one has a spontaneous discharge. Typically this happens at night so
we get the term nocturnal emission or wet dream. Sorry to be somewhat
graphic, but let me prove my point. Having had wet dreams (come on guys we
all have) I know that they are usually accompanied by some sort of erotic
dream. Generally, these are more erotic or silly than anything that I
could come up with consciously.
Now, I don't think that anyone would condemn someone for having an erotic
dream and/or an emission. You just cannot control your dream life. Now, I
ask everyone, what is the difference between masturbating and having a wet
dream other than the fact that you are conscious for one and unconscious
for the other? And frankly, you generally wake up during the dream. So
what is the difference? Arguments like your killing because you are
spilling semen is ridiculous. The body HAS to purge itself. Are we to
hold ourselves guilty for our unconscious thoughts and body actions as
well??? But one way or another, your body has to do it.......
Make sense??
Jon
----------------
sig file broken....
please try later...
----------------
Eric G. Yankowitz
>In article <C5L18...@spss.com> cyc...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Barry Johnson) writes:
>>
>>So, following the above logic, it is a sin to be sexually attracted to
>>someone? Also following the above logic, are you saying that it is
>>sinfull to be sexually attracted to you fiance'? Can you in this
>>context define lustfull? You define adultry in terms that you don't
>>cleary explain.
>
>Although it is understandable to be sexually attracted to someone, if we
>were to cut to the quick, it is not the right way to pursue a relationship.
>Biblical love involves a deep caring for a person, their welfare, and in
>everything that they do. It does not involve how good a person is in bed.
>So, being sexually attracted to your fiancee is also not right -- understand-
>able, but not right. We should love our partners for their person, not their
>body.
>
find the idea of souls existing apart from the body in scripture this is more
of a gnostic/greek idea. Remember Plato's Realm of Ideas, and how that miserable
body of ours keeps us from knowing the truth. hmm...
Rather if we look at the Genesis account we find that man is formed from the
dust of the ground. I don't think God formed his "spiritual soul" from dust.
rather this passage seems to equate man with his body. My point is I don't
think it is wrong to be sexually attracted to your fiancee because I don't
think her body is separate from herself. It is a part of herself just like her
mind and emotions are.
Secondly, We find sexual attraction in Song of Songs, and this seems to occur
before the marriage of the lover and the beloved. Neither do I believe we would
say that Christ is not attracted to his 'Bride' yet the wedding feast has not
yet taken place.
>Having to worry about all of this "lusting" is a product of our human nature.
>We are totally depraved and have to fight every day of our lives against the
>tendancies of our flesh.
>
TORENVLIET GERARD LAWRENS
>I understand the statistics on masturbation, and realize it is difficult to
>abstain. . . .but they are all part of the Ten Commandments, and more
>importantly, GOD's Commandments.
>No one ever said being a Christian and living a life worthy of a Christian
>was easy.
More pious crap. Make that CRAP. If you're going to cite the BIBLE
as an authority of the morality of masturbation, your mind is basically
CLOSED. You might as well cite it as an authority on astronomy. We
know where that leads: ignorance and persecution.
I get thoroughly fed up with people who attempt to find some form
of Biblical justification, or, more likely condemnation, for the most
trivial but normal types of behavior such as masturbation. To
accept the Bible without QUESTION, and this really means to accept
YOUR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the Bible, a book by many authors,
some allegedly divinely influenced, many obviously full of a variety
of human flaws and prejudices, is to basically GIVE UP. You may think,
piously, that you are giving your life to Christ, God, or whomever,
but you are really just taking the easy way out: Allowing someone
else to decide all of life's important and often unimportant questions
for you. I find this pathetic. But it is worse than that. In extreme
cases, you get Jim Jones, people that murder doctors claiming divine
inspiration or Biblical correctness. Blind acceptance of interpreted
and reinterpreted theology leads to fanaticism. Condemning masturbation
as anti-Biblical, therefore unholy, can be the first step.
ric steinberger
boundary, the catechist
{{ I want to apologize to anyone who was offended by the posting that
contained the quoted line. I missed it. Remember, profanity has NO
place in this group. I reject such articles out of hand...I missed
this one. -sma }}
>In article <C5L0G...@spss.com> r...@updike.sri.com (Richard Steinberger) writes:
>>hypocritical pile of shit
Hey Gerard,
That was pretty nasty, wasn't it? What do you think about Gn 38:8-10? Do
you consider it a condemnation of masterbation (as does a former Presbyterian
friend of mine) or of contraception? This is a test of true orthodoxy.
(Hint: Neo-Malthusianism)
Here's to ya, pal.
boundary, the catechist
In article <C5wCu...@spss.com> jo...@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden) writes:
>Make sense??
No. I've been working at it for a while and think I have finally figured
out what the priests have known for 1700 years (Council of Illiberi,
in the year of our Lord, 300): celibacy is cool, you know, like a total
freedom from lust. The key point with masturbation, just as with any
other sin of concupiscence, is that the proper combination of prayer life and
will can win the day. You don't believe me? Try it.
Down with the Modernists.
Gregory Robert Weiss
>From: tor...@ecf.toronto.edu (TORENVLIET GERARD LAWRENS)
>
>>I understand the statistics on masturbation, and realize it is difficult to
>>abstain. . . .but they are all part of the Ten Commandments, and more
>>importantly, GOD's Commandments.
>>No one ever said being a Christian and living a life worthy of a Christian
>>was easy.
>
>More pious crap. Make that CRAP. If you're going to cite the BIBLE
>as an authority of the morality of masturbation, your mind is basically
>CLOSED. You might as well cite it as an authority on astronomy. We
>know where that leads: ignorance and persecution.
I think you are missing the point. We are not citing the Bible primarily
for psychological, physical, or rational appeals to authority in this
discussion. As you note, we are discussing the *morality* of masturbation,
and the Bible has some relevant points to make concerning our sexual desires.
There is no such morality of astronomy. Your analogy is a false one.
>I get thoroughly fed up with people who attempt to find some form
>of Biblical justification, or, more likely condemnation, for the most
>trivial but normal types of behavior such as masturbation. To
>accept the Bible without QUESTION, and this really means to accept
>YOUR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the Bible, a book by many authors,
>some allegedly divinely influenced, many obviously full of a variety
>of human flaws and prejudices, is to basically GIVE UP. You may think,
>piously, that you are giving your life to Christ, God, or whomever,
>but you are really just taking the easy way out: Allowing someone
>else to decide all of life's important and often unimportant questions
>for you.
On the one hand, you claim that we (?) are giving our own "PERSONAL
INTERPRETATION", but on the other hand, you claim we are allowing
someone else "to decide all of life's questions."
You claim we've taken the easy way out and given up our ability to
make moral choices, but you claim we are interpreting the Bible to
do so. This is a contradiction.
Interpreting the Bible is sometimes easy when presented with
choices "Should I avoid commiting adultery?", but can be more difficult
when discussing something like "Should I get married?" It's not
"giving up" or "easy" to interpret the Bible- it can be hard work
searching for an answer. Obviously we could discuss interpretation
in much greater depth, but your complaint seems to be that not very
much thinking goes into the process. Interpretation is only one
of the many Christian activities that requires some thought. Try
figuring out how to obey "Love your neighbor". That's pretty broad!
You have to figure out in what (specific) ways you are going to love
your neighbor. The Bible doesn't list 1001 ways to love your neighbor.
(hmm, actually it might... :-) You have to figure out some of the
specifics yourself. It's harder than it looks;
there are many ways the passage could be applied: which one
do you choose? Christians examine the Scriptures and examine the
world around them, thinking about the relationship between the two.
While it's possible to be a non-thinking Christian, (or agnostic, or
atheist, ...) the Christians I have met have never been the
lemmings that you so describe.
> I find this pathetic. But it is worse than that. In extreme
>cases, you get Jim Jones, people that murder doctors claiming divine
>inspiration or Biblical correctness. Blind acceptance of interpreted
>and reinterpreted theology leads to fanaticism. Condemning masturbation
>as anti-Biblical, therefore unholy, can be the first step.
Fanaticism comes in many forms, not just in religious ones. Look at Bosnia.
I agree that fanaticism is dangerous. Without thinking about the
direction you are travelling and who you are following, how can you
be sure it is an angel leading you down the road and not a devil?
--Greg
Richard J. Szanto
Suppose you lust for your wife when you masturbate ? You are not
committting adultery then, correct ?
--
-Rick Szanto
-Polk Speakers Rock -Computer Engineer
-Mac's Suck (Nothing Personal) -Case Western
-Zeta Psi Rules -Reserve University
Conrad Yoder
This is mainly to the moderator but to everyone else as well.
I do not have the FAQ handy, but it seems that this thread has gotten FAR off
the track of what was meant to be discussed in this newsgroup (maybe I'm wrong
about this - if I am I will adjust appropriately!).
First, the post that started this thread used a passage from Ecclesiasticus
(it took me forever to figure that out - even my pastors had to look it up in
their Bible dictionaries). How appropriate is the Apocrypha here? Again, I
don't have the FAQ handy, so this may be legal ground.
{{ The 'apocrypha,' called the 'deuterocanon' in the Charter, is perfectly
appropriate. Although many, including myself do not hold it to be
'Scripture,' Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics do. Since there
was no definition of Christian in the Charter, nor should there have
been, Protestants, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc, etc all qualify.
If we were to draw a line, where would we draw it? }}
Second, there has been (IMHO) WAY too much opinion and passionate outbursts,
and LITTLE backing of claims from scripture or respected scholars in the
appropriate fields. This is supposed to be a BIBLE STUDY, discussing things
that appear in the Bible. While the conclusions that we draw from the
scriptures may vary widely, they need to actually be based on scripture!
There has been extremely little of this here.
{{ This has been pointed out by me several times, in the hopes that people
would take the comments to heart. It hasn't happened. Therefore, as
stated in the charter, articles that are not based on Bible study or
interpretation, or history, or textual criticism, etc (see the charter)
will be rejected. I may let some things through after careful thought,
but since several people have complained, rightly, I am going to be
tougher. }}
I joined this group because I enjoy discussing passages from the Bible and
hearing what others have to say, so that I may gain more insight into what
God has to say for us. Threads like this have frustrated me in that there is
little controlled, considerate and searching analysis going on.
{{ I agree. As an aside, though, you could use a 'killfile' to eliminate
threads which do not interest you... }}
I ask the moderator to address these observations and let us know what is his
position on these points. Unfortunately, if this is what postings will
continue to be like, I will not be doing much reading of this group.
{{ Done....let me know what you think - private mail can go to
'ad...@spss.com', public can be posted to the group. -sma }}
Peace,
Conrad
TORENVLIET GERARD LAWRENS
then defenses which I posted in reply to an article on masturbation.
I'm sorry if any of my comments became "passionate;" I just feel that part
of Bible Study is looking in the Bible and seeing what sort of moral
directives it gives.
If this was beyond the scope or purpose of this group, please notify me and
I will try to edit my thoughts a bit more.
Regards,
Gerard
P.S. Thanks to all those who defended my post, or perhaps the newsgroup,
against that FLAME (which, fortunately, I didn't have a chance to see in
full).