351
352

C.S. Lewis shares his theology regarding Masturbation (jonathandavidmedina.tumblr.com)

jonathandmedina が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Sacred HeartJordoom 132 ポイント133 ポイント  (133子コメント)

Lol, this sub sometimes.

I clicked this thread, saying to myself, "I bet the top comment is someone saying masturbation isn't a sin."

Basically, in the Church of /r/Christianity, the only sin is actually being a traditional Christian in even the smallest sense.

[–]Christian (Ichthys)DrTestificate_MD 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (29子コメント)

I wouldn't include categorizing masturbation as a sin as a core canonical belief, necessary for being a "traditional Christian" (unless by that you mean Roman Catholic ;P)

  1. The Bible is silent on masturbation, including deuterocanonicals!
  2. The early church fathers write nothing about it; nothing is known to be written about it until the 6th century.

Of course, that doesn't mean it wasn't condemned in the early Church.

I don't find the Catholic arguments against masturbation (and other sexual acts) particularly compelling. I think what C. S. Lewis and Tim Keller say about are the most compelling arguments I've heard.

[–]LDS (Mormon)DurtMacGurt -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Sounds like a question people would ask Christ about today if He were here, "but the Bible says nothing about masturbation."

Sounds like what some stiff-necked Jews would have said to Christ.

Masturbation is tied directly to lust, hedonism, and being carnally minded. You can tell what god you worship by what you spend your time doing. Do you worship pleasure or the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

Edit: [2 Tim 3:1-4]But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,

[–]kabbotta 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Masturbation is tied directly to list, hedonism, and being carnally minded.

But so is eating sweets. That doesn't make most Christians claim it is something that should be completely eliminated.

[–]LDS (Mormon)DurtMacGurt -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Masturbation incorporates all those things. Eating too many sweets is also sinful, because you aren't treating your body as a temple. Sex between a husband and wife is what God ordained those feelings for.

[–]kabbotta 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (2子コメント)

But you would allow people to eat some sweets. Which is a much less extreme demand than saying that masturbation is always wrong.

There are some Buddhists who eat a bland tofu soup every day to avoid the temptations of rich foods based on the exact same kind of logic you are using with sex. I would think in the modern context, it would be even worse now that we know eating rich food lights up many of the same areas of the brain as sex does. And the foods can have addictive effects similar to cocaine.

Sex between a husband and wife is what God ordained those feelings for.

Which kind of makes you wonder why he made us attracted to other things. We aren't generally attracted to rocks. So obviously it doesn't mess with our free will to limit the things that excite us, but God decided we would be designed to be excited excessively by sweet food.

[–]Christian (Ichthys)DrTestificate_MD 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually it would be the other way around. The scribes and teachers of the law were all about following the letter of the law and adding plenty of extra conditions on top of every law (eg. dont walk more than so many steps on the Sabbath)

Your same argument could be used against eating food. It is directly tied to gluttony, hedonism, and being carnally minded.

[–]LDS (Mormon)DurtMacGurt -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Gluttony isn't just about eating food, a modern application would be eating so much that you become obese and unhealthy. We are made in God's image, to defile that is to defile God.

I would say that my argument stands. It follows the spirit of law, and people are looking for something spelled out in holy writ, denying the whisperings of the Holy Spirit.

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Masturbation is tied directly to lust, hedonism, and being carnally minded. You can tell what god you worship by what you spend your time doing.

By this logic, a husband and wife who have sex every day are carnally minded and are sinning. Would you agree to that?

How is it any different for a couple to make love than it is for a single person to take care of a physical need? Why is one acceptable, but the other is a sin? It makes no sense. And you are seriously reaching by linking that passage in Timothy with masturbation...that is not what Paul was talking about. Look at the context.

[–]roflmyboxes -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

By this logic, a husband and wife who have sex every day are carnally minded and are sinning. Would you agree to that?

Presumably, being good Christians, they're adhering to the teachings of the first 1,930 years of Christianity and not using contraception while doing so.

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Where is that teaching in the Bible, for that matter? Now you've opened an even bigger can of worms. lol There is nothing in the Bible to make it clear that contraception is wrong, or that the only kind of sex that a married couple may have is the sort that can result in pregnancy, or that they must constantly be open to pregnancy. It isn't in the Bible - it's every bit as man-made a doctrine as the teaching that masturbation is a sin. God didn't say we must abstain from masturbation, and God didn't say we have to have as many babies as we physically can for as long as we can either (which is what happens when people don't use birth control...).

[–]roflmyboxes -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sounds like a question people would ask Christ about today if He were here, "but the Bible says nothing about masturbation."

Why would someone complain to Jesus, who came to start a church, that a book he didn't write doesn't mention something the church he started has said is wrong for 2,000 years?

[–]ParadoxN0W -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh boy, he's proof-texting now.

[–]MennoniteRedClone -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (15子コメント)

The Bible is silent on masturbation, including deuterocanonicals

Sin of Onan in the Pentateuch?

But anyway I'm pretty neutral on the whole topic, I agree with you that Lewis' argument is the best.

[–]Atheistcrusoe 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (10子コメント)

His sin was spilling his seed instead of knocking up his dead brothers wife to continue his brothers line. That was the sin.

[–]Roman Catholicgodzillaguy9870 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

If that's the case, why did God kill him when the Bible says the prescribed punishment for failing to produce children with your dead brothers wife was public humiliation, not death? And why didn't he kill the other man in the Bible who failed to do so?

[–]its-never-lupus 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because he directly disobeyed an order from God.

God told him to impregnate the women. Onan had other plans.

[–]Deistsmikims 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Why did God kill Ananias and Sapphira for holding back some money? Why didn't he kill other people who did the same kind of thing? God in the Bible seems to smite people for whatever he damn well pleases.

[–]Church of ChristForcefulZombie 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ananias and Sapphira lied about what they were doing to Peter's face for their own personal gain and I think they were smited to set an example "Don't lie about how much you are giving to gain respect."

Just my $0.02.

[–]its-never-lupus -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It certainly seems that way.

[–]Atheistcrusoe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because he was ORDERED by god to do so and failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

Onan (Hebrew: אוֹנָן, Modern Onan Tiberian ʼÔnān ; "Strong") is a minor biblical person in the Book of Genesis chapter 38,[1] who was the second son of Judah. Like his older brother, Er, Onan was killed by Yahweh. Onan's death was retribution for being "evil in the sight of the Lord" through being unwilling to father a child by his widowed sister-in-law.[2]

When Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before climax[4] and "spilled his seed [or semen] on the ground", since any child born would not legally be considered his heir.[5] He disregarded the principle of a levirate union, so God slew him.[6]

Also, Onan didn't masturbate, he just tried the pull-out version of birth control and was smited for it.

[–]Roman Catholicgodzillaguy9870 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your article does not prove that interpretation of the text. It certainly may have been a part of his slaying, but not necessarily the only part.

[–]LDS (Mormon)DurtMacGurt -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

People are spilling their seed across the Western world today. in their closets or wherever they think they can't be seen

[–]fighter5091 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is not what he was talking about. He was talking about spilling his seed INSTEAD of making his dead brothers wife pregnant.

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Onan was having sex. With another person. Not masturbation at all. The sin was that he was supposed to raise up seed for his dead brother, and he refused that responsibility.

[–]MennoniteRedClone 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ohhhh gotcha

[–]Atheistcattaclysmic 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

In my native language masturbation is called onani. Those have got to be connected.

[–]EmergentRedditRolledClimber 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"onanism" is a somewhat archaic English term for it

[–]ReformedSeonKi 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I opened the thread expecting the same thing haha. The only thing I'm surprised about is that your comment is upvoted. Interesting to see that a top comment's rebuttal is also upvoted.

[–]Sacred HeartJordoom 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, credit where credit is due. It's not that bad here. Just a little predictable.

[–]Christian (Ichthys)stug_life 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was expecting it to be somebody joking about the book title "your, jack"

[–]Church of the NazareneFreeBroccoli 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's important to prove to the atheist posters that being a Christian has no impact on our ethics.

[–]Thoguth 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No ... it's a result of the atheist (or other non-Christian) voters elevating the content that agrees most with their ethics. Not that some Christians wouldn't also support similar views, but what rises to the top is what's popular with all readers (many of whom are non-Christians) and that's the nature of the medium. Only way around it would be to sort by new, old, or possibly controversial.

[–]Christian (Cross)cuddlychewbacca 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No I personally don't think we need to prove out morals to atheists. It also definitely does affect them and to insinuate otherwise is somewhat foolish.

[–]Homeschooled316 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (5子コメント)

A whole lot of Christians don't believe masturbation is a sin, but it's social suicide to speak up about it in church. The verse in Matthew used as basically the sole support for the argument against it is a deliberate mistranslation used because it has become part of tradition (the word is covet, not lust, and the key distinction is the sense of owning/belonging or wanting to own and faithfulness to one's wife).

So this is me speaking up. Yes, I'm a Christian, and no, I don't believe masturbation is a sin. I think scriptural support for it is flimsy at best, but moreover, as a scientist, my understanding of the human biology and psychology makes it damn near impossible to convince me that God made 98%+ of men with a completely universal, pre programmed system for prostate maintenance that drives them mad if they don't behave accordingly.

Traditional Christians are always complaining in this subreddit that they aren't allowed to have opinions. That's not true at all. There are quite a few well-reasoned conservative Christians who don't get downvoted here. The problem is that the rest have been raised in a church environment where they are encouraged to just speak any traditional view without making a case for it and expect not only consensus, but applause. That doesn't go over very well here.

[–]LookingforBruceLee 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

As a scientist, you should know about nocturnal emission. The body will take care of its needs.

[–]Homeschooled316 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know about it well, and evidence does not suggest it is superior for maintaining health. But it's not just about the health.

Imagine if every man, by nature, was born with an addiction to cigarettes that could never be broken. To say masturbation is always harmful, this is essentially what you must believe.

"But man is, by nature, sinful!" you might say.

Sure, this is defensible, if you are a young earth creationist and you believe the fall physically altered human bodies to have an impulse to masturbate in a manner coincidentally identical to the way sex drives work in would-be mammalian ancestors. But otherwise, you have to admit that God created us that way one way or another.

"But you could make this same argument for violent impulses, or an affinity for cheating on one's spouse!"

In some sense, yes, but consider how both of the activities given as an example are much rarer than masturbation in men, which is essentially a universal behavior, and also cause harm to another person. While the act could interfere with a healthy marriage in a number of ways, harm is not a necessary part of it.

"But it IS harmful to your future spouse by being mentally unfaithful to them!"

This is both a failure to distinguish desire from fantasy and a misunderstanding of people's ability to control their thoughts, and the Church has been guilty of this for far too long. A passing sexual thought is not preventable, so, if there is a meaningful difference between a passing thought and an extended sequence of such thoughts, the difference must be in intent and desire. But what if a person has no such desire to actually do the things, but finds them interesting to think about? You might think it would foster a desire to, for example, cheat on one's spouse.

If so, what about a video game with violent content? Is this fostering a desire to actually go out and kill people? Does Sim City foster a desire for a person to become Mayor? Does Harry Potter foster a desire to practice witchcraft? This is fallacious reasoning, and evidence has shown over and over that, while people with certain desires fantasize about them, a person who fantasizes something they don't already want does not turn that fantasy into action.

This is why I make the critical distinction between the poorly translated word "lust," attributed to Jesus' words about adultery, and it's actual meaning. The word is identical to the one used in the Septuagint for covet, and the Septuagint would be familiar to all of Matthew's greek-speaking audience. The truth is that lust was a fine translation when it originally came into being. It only has a sexual connotation because we gave it one over time, and it went from meaning "desiring another man's wife" to "having sexual thoughts of any kind."

Yes, by carefully interpreting Jesus' meaning and building your theology around a specific view of sexuality, you could still understand the word covet to mean essentially the same thing. But then you're taking a viewpoint that is not supported by evidence and using it to interpret real-world evidence we actually have. This is reasoning backwards, and historically it is objectively inferior to taking what we know for a fact to be true and using that to help our understanding of the unknown.

I say we should instead use what we know to be true to learn about what God has to say in the world, instead of selectively accepting or interpreting scientific findings based on what we already chose to believe.

[–]EmergentRedditRolledClimber 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The problem is that the rest have been raised in a church environment where they are encouraged to just speak any traditional view without making a case for it and expect not only consensus, but applause.

Exactly. I'm interested in arguments that masturbation is sinful, because I feel no conviction about it and don't see much of a Scriptural argument about it -- especially masturbation as inherently sinful, rather than in some sense perilous. The contemptuous dismissal of any challenge to the "masturbation is literally Hitler"** position, a dismissal which seems to be reflected in most of the anti-masturbation posts, strikes me as both thoroughly un-Christian and intellectually unsound.

** I apologize to anyone I offended with this characterization. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but obviously some did not take it that way so I am leaving it here only so people understand the context of the below conversation.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]EmergentRedditRolledClimber -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yes, I used a bit of tongue-in-cheek hyperbole, which I thought was pretty obvious given that I described an action as a person. But a quick scan of the comments makes it quite clear that a lot of posters make it clear that they see masturbation as deeply harmful, as so obviously harmful that it's not even worth providing a rational justification for, and as so obviously harmful that questioning it is about as stupid and un-Christian as some other moral atrocity.

    And I'm not sure why you think I don't care about a reasoned explanation. Because I used the hyperbole? OK, mea culpa, I acknowledge that anti-masturbation Christians don't actually think that masturbation is as bad as the Holocaust and I apologize to any who thought I sincerely believe they do.

    [–]Christian (Liberal Charismatic)UnlikelySoccerStar 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (50子コメント)

    This is honestly the most irritating thing about this sub to me. Masturbation is sinful.

    'But what if I don't have lustful thoughts while doing it.'

    You're lying.

    "But what if I do it and only think about my wife?"

    You're playing with fire.

    'But what if I only do it whe-"

    FLEE FROM SEXUAL IMMORALITY!!!! Don't keep it at arms length so that it can be grabbed onto whenever you want, FLEE FROM IT! Masturbation isn't just keeping it at arms length, it's playing chicken with it.

    [–]Sacred HeartJordoom 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Amen, man.

    "In recent years I find myself noting how the more relativism becomes the generally accepted way of thinking, the more it tends toward intolerance. Political correctness … seeks to establish the domain of a single way of thinking and speaking. Its relativism creates the illusion that it has reached greater heights than the loftiest philosophical achievements of the past. It presents itself as the only way to think and speak — if, that is, one wishes to stay in fashion. … I think it is vital that we oppose this imposition of a new pseudo-enlightenment, which threatens freedom of thought as well as freedom of religion."

    • Pope Benedict XVI

    This kind of thing is probably the biggest underpinning to the decline of Christianity, the traditional family, and of Western society as a whole.

    The Puritans and Cathars insisted man was little better than an ape, and needed to be repressed and contained. The gnostics insisted that man was already higher than the angels, and so man's pleasure and physical body were spiritual insignificant. The modern world seems to cherry-pick what it likes from both anthropologies, and so moderns, including many Christians and churches, seem to expect that man should have the all of responsibilities of an ape (ie, none) and all the dignity of an angel.

    When the truth is just the opposite; that man has more dignity than the angel, due to the Imago Dei, but therefore has terrible and grand responsibilities as bearers of that image.

    The message of Christ, of true repentance and conversion, of truly releasing oneself into the care of the Divine Will as Christ did in Gethsemane and Mary did at the Annunciation, cannot work in such a world, within such an anthropology as we see today. The more and more we relegate our sins into "not that bad" or "hardly sinful," the less and less do we perceive the gravity of what Christ did. If I'm "not a bad guy," then Calvary is superfluous. If masturbation is healthy, fornication natural, abortion a "difficult but moral choice", gluttony "understandable", sodomy as tolerable, objectification of my fellow human being acceptable, materialism rational, and on and on and on, then Christ need not die for me, and I need not be redeemed. By incessantly relegating our most pathetic sins into other categories, instead of calling them what they are, we slowly but surely come to see ourselves as our own Redeemers, falling ever more egregiously into the sin of Adam and Eve, the sin of Satan, to be our own God.

    It is times like this that I ask St Michael to join his prayers to mine for myself and for the world. His name is a beautiful rejection of this modern trend, a rhetorical question spoken in the face of all who would seek to seat themselves above the Almighty - "WHO IS LIKE GOD?" No one.

    [–]Christian (Liberal Charismatic)UnlikelySoccerStar 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I don't agree with every political and doctrinal detail there, but the main principle, AMEN!!! Moral relativism needs to go back into the hole it came from, mankind needs to get over itself and too many christians in all denominations need to understand that there are times we shouldn't even entertain the world's absurd ideas about morality.

    As much as hyperconservative 'evangelicals' at times irritate me, they do understand much better than many other believers that we are to be set apart from the world, that sometimes we are going to conflict and conflict wildly with the world's opinion of truth.

    And people have a tendency to idolize Francis and write off Benedict, but the man had a great mind for theology and commentary. His wisdom at times still amazes me.

    [–]LDS (Mormon)DurtMacGurt 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Wonderfully put.

    [–]fighter5091 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Although I can agree with some things you said, I think it is rather judgemental of you to say that someone is lying when he says that he doesn't have any lustful thoughts while masturbating. You cannot possibly look into someone's mind, therefore couldn't possibly judge whether he is lying or not.

    [–]Christian (Cross)psycam 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Technically, your last sentence is correct.

    But I read his post as the type of internal struggle that many of us have about masturbation and lust, not a staged interpersonal dialogue. And if you have had those thoughts (as I have), you would be able to relate. Otherwise it would be a foreign concept. Here, he is not judging anyone in particular, rather discussing sin itself.

    [–]fighter5091 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Stating "you're lying" seems rather judgemental to me, while some people actually have been able to masturbate without entertaining lustful thoughts. In the end he states" Flee from sexual immorality" but that's the issue. We're trying to find out whether masturbation is sexually immoral or not.

    [–]Christian (Cross)psycam 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Okay brother, I see your point. His post just spoke to me differently.

    [–]Christian (Liberal Charismatic)UnlikelySoccerStar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Yeah, but it's like if your kid tells you they have no idea why the couch is suddenly covered in grape juice and their glass is empty. You can probably assume in all cases that they screwed up, even if you can't technically PROVE it.

    [–]fighter5091 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    That really is a false argument. Some people actually ARE able to masturbate without entertaining lustful thoughts. But since most of us aren't capable of such things, you just seem to be assuming that they're lying. That comes across as short-sighted to me.

    [–]Christian (Liberal Charismatic)UnlikelySoccerStar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Show me one person. Hell, one example. And I don't mean 'my friend said this happened to him.' I mean an example with any reasonable level of proof beyond taking that person's word for it.

    [–]fighter5091 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Just look across this thread, because there was someone here who stated that he masturbated while focussing on a doorknob.

    [–]Christian (Liberal Charismatic)UnlikelySoccerStar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I would be amazed if thoughts of his hot friend never once entered into his mind.

    Besides, it's still sinful because we are commanded to flee from sexual immorality, and as I said earlier, masturbation is at best like playing chicken with that sin.

    [–]fighter5091 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm amazed by the fact that you're not actually believing what your brother is telling ;)
    I know that you're saying that we should flee from sexual immorality, but that's the point of this thread, we're trying to figure out whether it's sexually immoral to do so or not.

    [–]LDS (Mormon)DurtMacGurt 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Amen.

    [–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Where in the Bible does it say that this act is sinful? This is the most irritating thing about this doctrine to me - it isn't in the Bible anywhere. Lust is forbidden...fornication and adultery and a host of other sexual practices including bestiality are forbidden...but nowhere, not even once, is masturbation even mentioned, let alone forbidden. IMO when people tell others that it's immoral and wrong, they are teaching a man-made doctrine as if it came from the mouth of God. Know what's playing with fire? Doing that.

    [–]Christian (Cross)cuddlychewbacca 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    The Bible states repeatedly that impure thoughts are immoral. I can count on one hand the amount of times i've masturbated to something unsexual.

    [–]Christian (Cross)psycam 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Something unsexual eh... like what?

    [–]Christian (Liberal Charismatic)UnlikelySoccerStar 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    /r/oddlyarousing

    It should be noted that trolls post actual porn to this sub, so NSFW just to be safe.

    [–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Impure thoughts =/= masturbation. Two different things. You can have impure thoughts and never lay a finger on yourself; you can masturbate without having much of anything in your mind; you can make love to your spouse while fantasizing about all kinds of impure things. Using that one verse which doesn't even mention masturbation to forbid it is therefore pointless because one could follow your logic and use it to forbid married couples from having sex due to what one may think in the heat of the moment.

    [–]LutheranSamonuh 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    You're lying.

    Didn't realize you're a mind reader. Care to show me your ways?

    [–]Christian (Cross)HistoryBuff92 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    "You're lying, Morgan!"

    [–]Christian (Liberal Charismatic)UnlikelySoccerStar -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    It's like when an eight year old says they don't know what happened to their grape juice when their glass is suddenly empty and there's a giant purple stain on the carpet. You don't KNOW, but you know.

    [–]LutheranSamonuh 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    So we're all like children to you? Seems condescending.

    [–]EmergentRedditRolledClimber 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Nothing makes the fundamentalist more certain that they are right than other people disagreeing.

    [–]its-never-lupus 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    What did the creator make humans so sexual?

    [–]AtheistBoogerStache 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    you're lying

    But what about the doorknob guy?!

    [–]Christian (Liberal Charismatic)UnlikelySoccerStar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Doorknob guy?

    [–]AtheistBoogerStache 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Haha there's a guy in the comments that said he once masturbated while staring at a doorknob to see if he could do it without lust.

    [–]Christian (Liberal Charismatic)UnlikelySoccerStar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Well then. That is now a thing.

    [–]ParadoxN0W 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    You're playing with fire? Lol

    [–]EmergentRedditRolledClimber 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Notice this somehow does not apply to marital sex, as though nobody ever has sexual thoughts about someone other than their partner.

    [–]ParadoxN0W 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Shhhh... Loophole!

    [–]Christian (Liberal Charismatic)UnlikelySoccerStar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    If you have the mental discipline to only think about the woman you are married to while masturbating, kudos, but I do not.

    [–]Christian (Chi Rho)SoWhatIfImChristian -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (12子コメント)

    That's the thing with so many believers nowadays. "It never said in the bible, it isn't clear, it's not stated as a sin, if I do it this way it's ok, etc" and my thoughts to this is why do we always try to toe the line at the utmost limit we can? It's not just sexual desires, but all sin we should flee from. We should be doing all we can to keep ourselves from sinning, so why put ourselves in situations where it's so easy to sin? I've heard arguments for cigarettes saying as long as you're not addicted and you don't smoke regularly enough to have it be harmful, it's not sin. Ok, for the sake of the argument lets say thats true ... but why toe that dangerous line? I remember one time I had a discussion with a pastor in regards to alcohol consumption as a Christian and he told me this. He agrees that the bible does not state drinking as necessarily an evil, but being intoxicated; however, why toe that line? I'd rather not put myself in a situation like so where I can easily slip. His statement hit me hard. By no means am I saying all of this because I'm doing so well, quite the opposite. I say this as someone who fails all the time. It's just that, the mindset that believers these days hold is so dangerous ... it's like people want to compromise on so many things when true faith is about not compromising anything.

    [–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Because the Bible is meant to be our guide for holiness. We aren't supposed to let our feelings or our opinions guide us - we are supposed to follow the Word. And if there's not even one word written in the Bible about masturbation, what reason do we have for obeying people who claim it's a sin and it makes God angry when people do it? On what basis am I to accept this teaching as true when there is not one place where God condemns it? It's not like the Bible is silent on other sexual matters! Sorry, but until I see that God disapproves of this harmless act, I refuse to believe that it is a sin and that it will hurt people.

    [–]Christian (Chi Rho)SoWhatIfImChristian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    But the thing is masturbation IS a sin. It causes inpure thoughts in the process, it causes lust, sexual pleasures are supposed to be derived from husband and wife. Masturbation is a perversion of this. Just because it doesn't explicitly state it does not mean it's not a sin

    [–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    But the thing is masturbation IS a sin.

    It doesn't say this in the Bible. Anywhere. It says that sex outside of marriage, cheating on your spouse, incest, bestiality, and a host of other sexual acts are sinful. But this one is not mentioned.

    You do not get to declare, on God's behalf, what is a sin and what is not a sin. Only God gets to do that, which is one reason He took the time to make sure we have the Bible - it isn't just about telling us the Gospel...it's also about telling us what is sinful and what is not. If masturbation is so bad, why didn't God say so like He did with all those other practices that the Bible forbids? It's not like He has a problem with spelling it out.

    It causes inpure thoughts in the process,

    So can sex between a husband and a wife. Fantasizing is a very common thing. What's your point? I can have impure thoughts even if all I'm doing is washing dishes or weeding the garden. Those things can pop up no matter what.

    it causes lust,

    ?? A person who is masturbating isn't lusting because they're touching their own body. This doesn't even make sense.

    sexual pleasures are supposed to be derived from husband and wife.

    No. The Bible says that sex is meant to be enjoyed between a husband and a wife, so any kind of sexual contact like oral/anal/hands/etc. is to be saved for marriage. Masturbation is not sex, and the only time it could possibly be a sin is if two people are doing it together before they are married.

    Masturbation is a perversion of this

    It's not a perversion of anything! It is no different than enjoying the way food tastes, or enjoying scratching a mosquito bite, or any other physically pleasant thing we do.

    Just because it doesn't explicitly state it does not mean it's not a sin

    The fact that it is not explicitly stated anywhere means that I cannot teach anyone that it is a sin, and neither can you. The fact that it's not explicitly stated means that you have no basis to condemn an act that is normal and natural and harms absolutely nobody. If you want to make the case that pornography and lust are sinful and harmful, we can easily back that up with Scripture, but the notion that the basic act of touching one's own genitals is a sin is laughable at best. I really dislike seeing the "doctrines of men" or "church tradition" being put forth as God's own truth. Actually, I think Jesus said a few things about that to the Pharisees once, too.

    [–]Christian (Chi Rho)SoWhatIfImChristian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Let's just choose to agree on our disagreements. I don't agree with you, and vice versa and I don't see this ever changing. These discussion on this subreddit itself turns into circlejerks all the time. If you wish to take this as me conceding and having nothing to say, take it as you wish, but I'm just tired of these discussions on the internet

    [–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    I think we will have to agree to disagree...but I still don't understand how you can hold to a belief that isn't supported by the Bible.

    [–]Christian (Chi Rho)SoWhatIfImChristian -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    That's the thing, I don't agree with you in saying that I'm believing in things that aren't supported in the bible. Rather, to me it's you who's doing that. So let's just keep it at that since we obviously aren't going to get anywhere

    [–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    That's the thing, I don't agree with you in saying that I'm believing in things that aren't supported in the bible. Rather, to me it's you who's doing that.

    The thing is, you can't produce a verse that says it's wrong. shrug That's why I said what I did.

    [–]EmergentRedditRolledClimber 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    why toe that line? I'd rather not put myself in a situation like so where I can easily slip.

    Yes, that is why there are entire discussions in the Bible about what to do if you have a weak conscience, or if the people around you have weak consciences. The Bible doesn't say "avoid all activities where you could possibly slip into some sort of sin," because the human heart is corrupt and this necessarily includes all human activities. Eating? Idolatry and gluttony, bad stewardship of resources, failure to honor the temple. Marital sex? Idolatry, using one's spouse for sex rather than to connect. Having a job? Pride, idolatry, greed. Not having a job? Pride, idolatry, sloth.

    Everything we do is touched by our sin, and the mass-scrupulosity approach is not what we are called to.

    [–]Christian (Chi Rho)SoWhatIfImChristian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Weak conscience or not, humans will eventually get burnt if they play with fire. It's in our nature. Of course, there are some things that we cannot obviously avoid, things like eating that might lead to gluttony and etc. However, things like drinking is not a necessity that we need to partake in. While indeed everything that humans do can become a sin once taken to the extreme, believers are supposed to strive for holiness and I don't think it'll help when we constantly toe the line. Yes, people can take the most arbitrary things and turn it sinful, since that is the state of the human heart. However, how about things that can clearly lead into a hole?

    [–]EmergentRedditRolledClimber 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Because avoiding sin is also playing with fire -- the sin of pride. The fire which so frightens you is all around us and every step we take is on the very edge. Nothing is safe from sin, not even (perhaps especially not) holiness. If you feel convicted not to do something (drink, masturbate, eat french fries, work out, read novels), then you shouldn't. But your conviction, whether genuine conviction from the Holy Spirit or the invention of your own fear, does not bind the rest of us to obey your fear.

    Further, you seem to imply that lots of these things are "toeing the line", as though God isn't going to denounce us as sinners for doing them, but we're still sinners for doing them. That's just silly. God's holiness is not a legal system, where there are imperfections which excuse things which ought not be excused or forbid things which ought not be forbidden. Either something is sinful or it's not. It might have differing degrees of gravity, but it's not sinful-and-not at the same time.

    [–]BaronVonCrunch -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Can't it be both?

    [–]Christian (Liberal Charismatic)UnlikelySoccerStar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Both what?

    [–]BaronVonCrunch 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    "Keeping it at arm's length" and "playing chicken with it."

    [–]Gnosticismbunker_man 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Or maybe what defines something as a sin is that it is actually bad in some way, not some arbitrary logic that no one can consistently sum up? Like you know, actually hurts someone significantly. Its not some kind of insane surrealism to lay out that murder and violence, or even promiscuous sex can cause great problems, but that you have to stretch to say that masturbation inherently causes them.

    [–]Church of the Nazarenebeardtamer 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I don't think it has anything to do with traditions. I think it just doesn't make any sense to single out masturbation as sinful. It doesn't seem any more sinful than your other standard addicting behaviors like drinking coffee or biting your fingernails or eating fast food.

    Edit: However I do think that this sub loves to argue. If the OP makes a point about something you better believe there's somebody ready to state the opposite.

    [–]EmergentRedditRolledClimber 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Yes, this Christian discussion forum must have nothing but circlejerks about how we all agree with Catholic doctrine.

    And of course, most of the discussion (especially from the non-atheist/non-humanist posters) is basically a circle-jerk ranging from "eh it's a little bad" to "it's pretty bad".

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]EmergentRedditRolledClimber 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Well we try to make Catholic doctrine more righter but you guys won't listen. ;)

      [–]UGAShadow 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Oh boo hoo. It's not even a core belief of Christianity. Of course there will be disagreements.

      [–]Sacred HeartJordoom -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      I said "lol", not boo hoo. Though, if I could see with heaven's eyes, I'd probably cry. But from my vantage point, the predictability is just adorable.

      [–]EmergentRedditRolledClimber 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      If you could see with heaven's eyes, you might be more concerned with loving your brothers and sisters in Christ rather than mocking them as being insufficiently holy.

      [–]Sacred HeartJordoom 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      We're all insufficiently holy. If I mock anyone, I mock myself as well.

      That's actually my point. See my post here. If I am mocking anyone for anything, it would be for a blase false sense of holiness and a constant, sentimental tendency to relegate the Gospel of Jesus Christ to "eh, if your name isn't Hitler, you're probably good enough."

      As the great Southern Gothic writer Flannery O'Connor once said:

      We lost our innocence in the Fall, and our turn to it is through the Redemption which was brought about by Christ's death and by our slow participation in it. Sentimentality is a skipping of this process in its concrete reality and an early arrival at a mock state of innocence, which strongly suggests its opposite.

      [–]on-a-journey 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

      I totally agree. This place oft reminds me of Christianity-masked hedonism. Like people performing mental gymnastics to say that masturbation is ok in all contexts. I do believe there are a few exceptions to the rule but the fact of the matter is everyone is looking for a way out of holy living instead of embracing it. I don't understand this desire to call yourself a Christian and the pursue as many worldly passions as you can while still "justifying" them by the Bible.

      Why even mess around with masturbation if you see the damage it causes? There are so many other areas we as Christians need to venture into the fray, why voluntarily pick another issue up for no good reason?

      [–]Church of the Nazarenebeardtamer -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

      I think my personal point is: I don't see the damage it causes. That's why I even bother to contest it in the first place.

      [–]on-a-journey 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Maybe you are the exception to the rule but I will speak from anecdotal evidence to almost every guy I have spoken to about this issue (which is a large percentage of my christian friends.)

      The desire to masturbate at least in my life (even when I masturbate without lusting) often arises when I am having a bad day or I am feeling emotionally drained. I use masturbation as a crutch to avoid dealing with the true issues that are in my life such as stressors at work, conflict in a relationship, or a feeling of lack of closeness to God. So instead of figuring out the problem at work, clearing up the conflict with the relationship, or spending time with God, I am sitting around indulging in selfish desires (even if it isn't lust.) That is the issue is that I am finding selfish relief in an issue and not living up to my calling as a Christian.

      My other point is why try and justify something that is so often warned against in the scripture. I often point to the scripture that says "not even a hint of sexual immorality..." So why not just avoid this issue altogether and use your time to help someone or do something beneficial in your life?

      Edit: I'm not condemning masturbation outright but I am asking that you really and truly ask yourself why you should partake in this behavior. I think when it comes to a lot of behaviors you should justify why you should do it not why you shouldn't.

      [–]Church of the Nazarenebeardtamer -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      The desire to masturbate at least in my life (even when I masturbate without lusting) often arises when I am having a bad day or I am feeling emotionally drained. I use masturbation as a crutch to avoid dealing with the true issues that are in my life such as stressors at work, conflict in a relationship, or a feeling of lack of closeness to God.

      Yeah I think that's called a stress reliever. Sometimes I think it's ok to take a step back, play some video games, watch a movie, take some time and just rest, then go back and deal with the problem with a fresh mind.

      Also, masturbation is not mentioned at all in scripture, it's not really hinted at, it just isn't there. And the weirdest thing is, that all kinds of parts of society or issues in society that arose through time were talked about in scripture. It talks about widows, and sex, and homosexuality, and rape and everything that existed in social issues. Don't you think that masturbation existed in Biblical times? My guess would be yes. So why isn't it actually addressed if its wrong?

      [–]on-a-journey 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I think you're nitpicking and trying to justify behavior that ultimately is not as beneficial to you or those around you as other uses of your time. Just like alcohol, video games, food or whatever pleasurable activity you must examine your motivations. They are not outright evil. Nothing without a soul can be evil in and of it self. The sin comes from your motivations with it. I don't play video games because they are a waste of my time. I limit my food intake because it isn't healthy for me. I try to limit my alcohol intake because it's a huge waste of my money which I could spend elsewhere. (This is probably the biggest issue for me of the three.) Do I overindulge in all of these areas? yes! But that doesn't excuse the fact they they are not in my best interest.

      I think when it comes to a lot of behaviors you should justify why you should do it not why you shouldn't.

      [–]roflmyboxes 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Basically, in the Church of /r/Christianity, the only sin is actually being a traditional Christian in even the smallest sense.

      Of course — that's why all the Catholics are in their own sub, to keep away from this nonsense.

      [–]wildlight -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Like how it was in the dark ages?

      [–]Sacred HeartJordoom 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      wat

      But, no, in all seriousness, the term "dark ages" as a historiographical term has fallen out of favour with most, if not all, serious historians.

      There's probably a lot we could learn from that time period, though, if only we had the humility and the intellectual rigor.