masturbation (christians)

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

More thoughts on the subject of masturbation for a Christian....If we judge it acceptable for unmarried people to engage with each other in some degree of sexual stimulation and pleasure why would we think it unacceptable for an individual to engage with him/herself in some degree of sexual stimulation and pleasure?

Those that have a full and wonderful sexual experiences with spouses can have some difficulty getting the full power of Paul’s 1 Corinthians 7:9, "If they can’t control themselves, it’s better to marry than to burn with passion." This section is Paul defending the right of a person to remain unmarried, which he thinks is a more advantageous situation provided that a person can gladly live in honorable celibacy.

But he speaks of the possibility of people not being able to "control themselves" as a perfectly normal condition. Let them marry to keep from burning. (Only a silly person thinks that this is Paul’s whole philosophy about marriage.) People that go around filled with hunger that isn’t satisfied are enslaved creatures (even if the hunger is a wicked one—maybe, especially if it is a wicked one). Paul would teach that we should "ease our pain" and live a full productive life.

Paul doesn’t deal with those who’d dearly love to be married but can’t find someone suitable for marriage. Consider someone who will not engage in a premarital full sexual experience; furthermore, she won’t marry a person that isn’t in Christ or at least shows a real interest in him.

She hungers greatly for sexual pleasure, in the way she hungers for food, drink, friendship or whatever. She is taught that all such hungers are God-given and that she mustn’t be ashamed of them or apologize for them but she’s forbidden to satisfy one of them—the sexual appetite.

She is told there is no way in which she is allowed to cater to that hunger unless she gets married. She can caress her tongue with chocolates, her ears with music, her eyes with books or movies—all to feed underlying hungers but she is forbidden to caress "sexual" parts of her.

She knows perfectly well that the sexual experience is not an absolute that stands without guidelines for honorable engagement—there’s too much in scripture for her to believe that "anything goes".

She simply doesn’t understand why it’s okay for unmarried men and women to kiss and hold one another and to sexually stimulate one another as well as satisfy their own hunger while she’s forbidden to stimulate herself while alone.

If she’s hungry she eats, thirsty she drinks, so that these hungers are fed and kept in control without guilt and, in addition, she doesn’t go around a lot of the time longing for these things. But her sexual hunger is never to be satisfied, under no circumstances? Even Paul the honorable and cheerful celibate could easily see that "burning" would be a good word to cover such an ongoing experience.

There are the conservatives that would scoff and say..."Yes, but think what encouraging masturbation could lead to."

I'm sure God thought what it could lead to when he gave us our sexual capacity.

I don't think we can work well with this issue with this approach.

Abuse and perversion is possible (and happens) with all God's gifts.

And I'm not saying we should encourage it (though that might under some very special circumstances be good temporary advice).

I'm simply saying we mustn't make sin out of this unless we have good grounds for doing so.

You understand that I’ve been speaking about sexual activity as it were a simple and an undifferentiated drive when it manifestly is not! It’s a complex reality that, for a healthy person, connects with other needs and desires.

It’s true that sexual activity has a solid contact with our "animal" nature but we aren’t animals. We want to give as well as receive, we want love and devotion, we want to express deep feelings and experience intimacy. All this you know and don’t need to be told.

It doesn’t matter that many have no other interest than to get the rush—the loss is theirs. And it doesn’t matter that our Western society is so preoccupied with raw sex—there’s still no shame in a sexual appetite (how did the Song of Solomon get into a Bible that thinks "sex" is a dirty word?) but to worship it, or any other drive, is idolatry.

I suppose there’s a strong feeling that our sexual gift is "wasted" if it isn’t experienced with another person. I would certainly think that our sexual gift is most fully experienced within a marriage covenant but I don’t think that to take sexual pleasure alone is a waste or a sin.

Let me conclude this rather rambling piece.

I think we’re in a sex-soaked, sex-drenched Western culture and the sexual experience has not only been cheapened and perverted, it has become an obsession.

I don’t think masturbation is inevitable (any more than I believe non-marital sex is inevitable) nor do I think it should be promoted (any more than I think sexual experience should be promoted).

But I don’t think it should be condemned in principle. I think the moral right or wrong of masturbation depends on how it functions within the life of any individual.

I believe what is obvious; there is more than one reason why people engage in sexual self-pleasing and I believe that in some cases there are underlying factors that need to be treated.

For example...My own personal guilt associated with my own decisions regarding masturbation at times is not something I prefer to share as part of this discussion only because I tend to hold myself to standards (in everything) that I would never condemn another to live up to....there are times I feel more strongly about it than others and I think that lies primarily not in the act itself but the thoughts that pervade my mind when I engage in it.

There are times that I feel the things I think about are more sinful than the act of masturbation that releases those feelings. It's a very personal thing. The act is something between me and myself and the guilt (or lack thereof) is between me and God.

Anyway....there are some avenues of sexual release that I think the scriptures clearly forbid but I don’t think masturbation is one of them. There are some lawful avenues of sexual release that I believe can be engaged in, in a dishonourable way, and I think masturbation is one of them.

my view...take it or don't 🙂
~tm

 

[blackfeather]

I couldn´t resit to give my viewpoint. As many people in here, I am Roman Catholic, And It´s true that they say masturbation is a sin. I personally think that masturabtion is a perfectly normal act, and part of the needings of the people, It´s something you need to do in order to free your mind and explore your sexuality, It´s like a biological need.
Most of the religions course the act of masturbation, and honestly the only rational and credible explanation I found about the badness of the masturbation was into the Hinduism belief, they say that everytime you do it, you´re killing potential human beings, cause you waste your sperm. But this blames to the masturbation are because they´re based on ancient traditions and past people way´s of see the life, but the times change! The ideas necessarily have to change, we`re are not the same human beings from the apst time.
In my opinion there is no sin at all. An open mind would agree with me.
Well, that´s what I think... 😛

 

[Iggy pop]

I was being deliberately obtuse, irreverent and insulting because people like 'reserved' piss me off. I have a bumper sticker that reads; "GOD, protect me from your followers!"
My actual beliefs can be found in the thread about what we each actually believe elsewhere on this forum.
You might also find my post in the thread called another time and place interesting, and the reasons for it.
I believe unshakably that there is a God who created the universe.
I am absolutely certain that Jesus of Nazareth was NOT that God, nor the son of that God, nor divine in any way. He was a rabbi who tried to reform his religion (Judaism) and who MISTAKENLY thought that God had appointed him to throw the Romans out of Israel, re-establish the kingdom, become the first king of it's new dynasty, make Magdalene his queen and the mother of his hiers. There is ample evidence for this view, despite the attempts of various churches down the ages to suppress or destroy it. Just BTW, the word messiah, as Jesus and his contemporaries knew and understood it, meant that and only that; the man, inspired and aided by God, who would expel the Roman invaders and rebuild the kingdom of Israel.
All that stuff about bringing peace to the world was invented by Saul of Tarsus, aka St. Paul, and Jesus knew nothing about that and would have been appalled at the very idea, as he would at ANY denomination that calls itself Christian in the 21st century!
Did you know that some Jewish theologians refer to Christianity as the Pauline Heresy? It's a correct designation.

What is source material for all this information? Outside the Bible and Gnostic scriptures, the only source material about Jesus I have heard of comes from Josephus, Pliny the younger(possibly), Suetonius(possibly), and Tactius. And none of these soruces go into very much detail about the man.

 

[Mastertank1]

The scholars generrally are too damn lazy.

What is source material for all this information? Outside the Bible and Gnostic scriptures, the only source material about Jesus I have heard of comes from Josephus, Pliny the younger(possibly), Suetonius(possibly), and Tactius. And none of these soruces go into very much detail about the man.

They forget a very important fact about the time and place in which Jesus lived; unlike the rest of the world, the Jews had virtually 100% male literacy BECAUSE THEY HAD TO BE ABLE TO READ IN ORDER TO GET BAR MITZVAH'D!

Jews in that time and place canstantly wrote stuff down, wrote each other letters, kept business records, jotted down notes for themselves, and so forth. Many, many references to Jesus were found by looking in those sources.
Rather than direct you to the original research, which makes for very dull reading and is in a very opaque style generally, I'll reccommend several summarroes on different topics of the alternate scholarship on the life and death of Jesus, written by a Professor at Oxford University in England, and available through most major urban and university library systems, but not from the libraries of most Christian colleges.
"Revolution In Judea"
"The Mythmaker"
"Judas Iscariot And The Myth Of Jewish Evil".
These three books were real eye-openers for me, confirming things I had long suspected and revealing many facts that I had not even suspected.
After reading these books, I respect Jesus Of Nazereth as a hero, in the same mold and for the same reasons as the leaders of the Anti-Nazi resistance in Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Holland during WWII were heros. They all tried to lead their people in revolt to throw a hated occupier out of their country. Many of them were tortured and executed for making the attempt. But that's all he was. Not divine.
He repeatedly SAID he was not divine.
He forbade his followers to convert any pagans, or anyone who was not already a Jew to their movement.
He told them to keep kosher.
He told them NOT to start a new religion.
The ONLY places where he ever said otherwise, on any of those topics, were in the pages of the propaganda piece called the New Testament, and in the 'vision on the road to Damascus' that Saul of Tarsus (you know him as Saint Paul) claimed to have had.
None of the men who wrote the New Testament ever met Jesus in person.
None of them ever were present to hear Jesus speak.
None of them were ever even in the same town at the same time as Jesus.
Most of them were not born until after Jesus had died.
Where do the words that they attribute to Jesus come from?
It's simple; they were making it all up, so they just made their fictional Jesus say whatever they wanted him to, which was whatever they thought would be the most useful in promoting their new religion.
Some have said that when one (like me) has a 'will to disbelieve' no amount of evidence is enough to convince me that Christianity is true. That's not the case at all. It's not a matter of not enough evidence that it's true; it's a matter of so much conclusive evidence that it's false.
I do believe in God.
I also believe that every branch, denomination, sect and subdivision of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are totally, 100% wrong about God's nature, and especially about what God wants us to do and how God wants us to behave.
I especially believe that any human being who has ever claimed to speak for God, or with God's voice, or in God's name, or according to God's will, is a God-damned (I use the term very literally) liar.
The Apostate Of Pittsburgh
aka

 

[scorpionldr]

Read the book "Every Man's Battle" or get the tapes or video, all ur questions will be answered. It even brings up the question if it's still wrong 2 do it to girls who still have clothing on. U'll see how it is possible 2 break the habbit of masturbating and how 2 do it and how to control and get rid of those desires and thoughts that tempts us into doin them. Once u stop u'll be more free than ever, which is what God wants for us. He loves us man, he told us not 2 do certain things so that we would have a better life, not because he wants us 2 be miserable. That book will point out how alot of guys sex lifes with their wifes became sooooooooo much better once they quit masturbating and looking at porn. All the talk about "not masturbating" being unhealthy and stuff is all bs, God designed our bodies to get rid of our sperm so we don't have 2 masturbate, if u go like 3 days and don't have a wet dream by than u end up pissing it out. Alot of people will tell u it's not wrong because the devil wants us 2 keep doin it and tricks us into thinking its ok. Another reason some people will tell u it's not wrong is because if we stop doin it than that means less money for all the porn companies out there lol. Please get that book before u decide for urself if it's wrong or not. Peace of Christ and God bless u bro.

That's messed up. So, if YOU dont masturbate.....why are you here? I mean don't get me wrong, we're into tickling, but if your going to throw yourself into here where the main focus of conversation is at a perversion, doesn't that mean YOUR the sinner as well?

Where does female masturbation fit into this whole debate? I mean, all this seed-spilling bull doesn't really apply to us girls 😀 From what I gather, some people think it's a sin because the guy isn't using his little swimmers to make babies, and some think it's a sin because of the lustful thoughts that go along with it. Girls masturbate too, friends! 😉 It's funny how the "sin" part only really seems to be thought out for male masturbation.

I find it funny that people try to find ways around what they fear to be sins... like with the original poster, saying that it wouldn't be lustful to think of a fully clothed woman being tickled. Come freaking on... if you think about anything and it turns you on enough to want to touch yourself, you are lusting! Not that there's anything wrong with that, I think lusting is rather fun personally, and I don't worry too much about sin. I know right from wrong without some religious figure telling me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my bed.

haha, all it means is this is more fuel for the "men love more than women" debate, because we "spill the seed" so much more often. you'll go to heaven even if you masturbate, but us men are going straight to hell because our loving costs seed lol. you must remember tho, that back in the day, women weren't supposed to masturbate.

LOL


You know, what he wrote about girls being upset by their men masturbating, I can see how that might be true in some cases...I know there are a lot of girls who are maybe sexually repressed, and they're all "ewww!!" about masturbating. (not talking about anyone here, just girls I've known) Is this the common attitude? Ladies, what would you think if you caught your man full-on going at it with himself? 😀

Now as for me, I'd probably either
1. Ask if I could watch or help out with that
2. Laugh for like ten minutes straight 😀

Now men, what would you think if you caught your girl in the throes of self-luving? 😉 Would it upset you or would it be a turn-on?

lol i like how you think....would it upset me? hell no! the thrill of getting caught by your own mate is both hilarious and exciting. I'd invite her to join in. after all, we gotta find another use for this "SEED" somehow! lol I'll get her to grab a cup, and we'll take it all down to the doners. lol

 

[Sunday_10pm]

If you have been taught that masturbation is a sin, and you will burn in hell for your sins, someone is using fear to manipulate and control you. YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED!

 

[ticklee_heather]

I don't think the topic ever came up in my. Then again my family was in a pretty liberal church that allowed women deacons and ministers. Also I think the average age was something like 55 maybe so I don't think the old people really wanted to hear about masterbating. I know some of my really conservative religious friends told me it was a sin but I don't know, I guess the whole forgiveness thing kind of just made me not care.

 

[TKpervert]

98 percent of us admit to masturbation and the other two percent are liars.

 

[Mastertank1]

Right ON brother!

98 percent of us admit to masturbation and the other two percent are liars.

Or should I say right arm?

 

[Iggy pop]

They forget a very important fact about the time and place in which Jesus lived; unlike the rest of the world, the Jews had virtually 100% male literacy BECAUSE THEY HAD TO BE ABLE TO READ IN ORDER TO GET BAR MITZVAH'D!

Jews in that time and place canstantly wrote stuff down, wrote each other letters, kept business records, jotted down notes for themselves, and so forth. Many, many references to Jesus were found by looking in those sources.
Rather than direct you to the original research, which makes for very dull reading and is in a very opaque style generally, I'll reccommend several summarroes on different topics of the alternate scholarship on the life and death of Jesus, written by a Professor at Oxford University in England, and available through most major urban and university library systems, but not from the libraries of most Christian colleges.
"Revolution In Judea"
"The Mythmaker"
"Judas Iscariot And The Myth Of Jewish Evil".
These three books were real eye-openers for me, confirming things I had long suspected and revealing many facts that I had not even suspected.
After reading these books, I respect Jesus Of Nazereth as a hero, in the same mold and for the same reasons as the leaders of the Anti-Nazi resistance in Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Holland during WWII were heros. They all tried to lead their people in revolt to throw a hated occupier out of their country. Many of them were tortured and executed for making the attempt. But that's all he was. Not divine.
He repeatedly SAID he was not divine.
He forbade his followers to convert any pagans, or anyone who was not already a Jew to their movement.
He told them to keep kosher.
He told them NOT to start a new religion.
The ONLY places where he ever said otherwise, on any of those topics, were in the pages of the propaganda piece called the New Testament, and in the 'vision on the road to Damascus' that Saul of Tarsus (you know him as Saint Paul) claimed to have had.
None of the men who wrote the New Testament ever met Jesus in person.
None of them ever were present to hear Jesus speak.
None of them were ever even in the same town at the same time as Jesus.
Most of them were not born until after Jesus had died.
Where do the words that they attribute to Jesus come from?
It's simple; they were making it all up, so they just made their fictional Jesus say whatever they wanted him to, which was whatever they thought would be the most useful in promoting their new religion.
Some have said that when one (like me) has a 'will to disbelieve' no amount of evidence is enough to convince me that Christianity is true. That's not the case at all. It's not a matter of not enough evidence that it's true; it's a matter of so much conclusive evidence that it's false.
I do believe in God.
I also believe that every branch, denomination, sect and subdivision of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are totally, 100% wrong about God's nature, and especially about what God wants us to do and how God wants us to behave.
I especially believe that any human being who has ever claimed to speak for God, or with God's voice, or in God's name, or according to God's will, is a God-damned (I use the term very literally) liar.
The Apostate Of Pittsburgh
aka

All three books you listed are written by one author: Hyman Maccoby. While I do contend there is some scholarly value in his works, he could hardly be considered unbiased. Many scholars(not just Christian) have pointed out factual errors and speculations in his works.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

Just my opinion, but if god didn't want us to masterbate, he would have made our arms shorter.

 

[TKpervert]

Dammit to hell Cosmo, you stole my line.

I agree that waxing the carrot is a design feature, not a sin.
.
.
.

 

[Mastertank1]

No Scholar is unbiased

All three books you listed are written by one author: Hyman Maccoby. While I do contend there is some scholarly value in his works, he could hardly be considered unbiased. Many scholars(not just Christian) have pointed out factual errors and speculations in his works.

The factual errors are highly questionable, mostly called such because they contradict the New Testament.
The non-Christian scholars who attack Maccoby (first name Chaim, BTW) do so for the same real reason that Galileo was tried for heresy; not for what he said, but for being a pompous ass about saying it and personally offending a lot of people.
The speculations they complain about are all clearly identified as such in Maccoby's texts, and the reasoning behind the speculation stated.

As far as the 'reliability' of the bible as a historical document, let me refer you to a book called "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why" by Bart Ehrman.
No, he is not a Jew. He is a fundamentalist Christian bible scholar who became concerned about the way different 'versions' of the bible contradict each other. He undertook to find the original text of the bible as it was first written, and became progressively more and more appalled as the number of changes, both accidental and deliberate, mounted and mounted the farther back in time he probed. He was forced, VERY reluctantly, to conclude that there is almost not a single word in any current version of the bible, old or new testaments, that we can safely point to and say it is original.
Ehrman is a graduate of several of the most prestigious (AND most conservative) bible colleges in the US.
His work has also been attacked, for reasons even more bogus than the attacks on Maccoby.