I'd like to hear the logic as told by as many different religions as possible. It seems so natural and pure and meaningful on so many levels, yet we are the only animals with a natural tendency to induldge in it. Very few animal species practice it, and they have no moral doctrine whatsoever. Go figure.

I would really like to see an elephant try and masterbate...!

*jumps on plane to africa*

...they have trunks and can sit on their asses.

In my relegion we dont spurn it

We churn it, like butter. *fap*

would you like the short answer or the long one?

the short answer is that God says it is an abomination.

the long answer would start out as a question: Why would it be an abomination to God?

(1)When God said to Adam (and Eve) "Be fruitful and multiply fill the earth and subdue it"... and interestingly, He says it again to Noah & arkmates, it would be by implication that masturbation is a(n) "useless fuck" (pardon my language-- ).

(2){this next part is mostly (mine) theory and conjecture--} Usually when one masturbates, he/she is picturing someone in their mind other than their own spouse-- which would be (according to Jesus) lust, thus breaking the commandment of adultery.

Also, when one is masturbating, fantasy senerios of other sins may come into play, to make the fantasy more "fun" and erotic {which would be an extention of the concept Jesus made of adultery (lust) and murder (hate)}. To expand on this: the further one goes in their mind (fantasy), the easier it is to make the fantasy become reality or to make the fantasy even more "dangerous" and exciting--thus desensitizing the mind away from what God says is good.



(3)Masturbation is(or rather, could be) a selfish act... pleasuring self at the possible expense of not sharing self with spouse.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

would you like the short answer or the long one?

the short answer is that God says it is an abomination.

the long answer would start out as a question: Why would it be an abomination to God?

(1)When God said to Adam (and Eve) "Be fruitful and multiply fill the earth and subdue it"... and interestingly, He says it again to Noah & arkmates, it would be by implication that masturbation is a(n) "useless fuck" (pardon my language-- ).

(2){this next part is mostly (mine) theory and conjecture--} Usually when one masturbates, he/she is picturing someone in their mind other than their own spouse-- which would be (according to Jesus) lust, thus breaking the commandment of adultery.

Also, when one is masturbating, fantasy senerios of other sins may come into play, to make the fantasy more "fun" and erotic {which would be an extention of the concept Jesus made of adultery (lust) and murder (hate)}. To expand on this: the further one goes in their mind (fantasy), the easier it is to make the fantasy become reality or to make the fantasy even more "dangerous" and exciting--thus desensitizing the mind away from what God says is good.



(3)Masturbation is(or rather, could be) a selfish act... pleasuring self at the possible expense of not sharing self with spouse.

1) Therefore, you are saying that sex without "fruition", or without the exact intent of breeding would be an abomination as well? That is what you seemed to imply with the "useless fuck" comparison.

2)It's axiomatic that we think of erotic scenarios during the act. Who can help it that their spouse doesnt happen to take the starring role?

It seems as though these "abominations" go against the very grain of human nature. It also seems deconstructive to the Adultery commandment. Wouldn't it seem like a more healthier alternative than actually cheating on your spouse? (I am of the firm belief that as moral animals, we were NOT equipped in our brains for monagamy - it's a social standard, nothing more or less.)

3) It only seems selfish. It's no more selfish than scratching an itch. The urge is there, you're not hurting anybody, if you do it in the privacy of your own space, you can't possibly offend anybody.

Maybe fewer altar boys would get molested by their priests if masturbation was encouraged instead of scorned. Maybe STD's wouldn't be so rampant if more people practiced it. Maybe there would be a decline in the divorce rate.

They're really just trying to protect you from going blind. Don't you see?

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:

They're really just trying to protect you from going blind. Don't you see?

Mannnn -

Do not even jest. I used to actually BELIEVE that crock! The nuns lied. I am living proof.

*snickers*

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:

They're really just trying to protect you from going blind. Don't you see?

I only did it until i needed glasses. <<smirk>>

but my palms never got hairy

we know what the bible says about it being bad, about "spilling the seed" and all that. but is there an actual good reason why? god created us with the ability and the tendency to have a wank, why would he change his mind?

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

1) Therefore, you are saying that sex without "fruition", or without the exact intent of breeding would be an abomination as well? That is what you seemed to imply with the "useless fuck" comparison.



first of all, you started by wanting to hear the logic (i think, though, that you really wanted to hear the theologic). Anyway, i'm not catholic even though a catholic priest explained the reasoning why they were against birth control other than the "rhythm method".. that being that sex without the possibility of procreation was against the (catholic) church's doctrine. I dont necessarily agree with that 100 %, but it'll do for now. I dont remember seeing in the Bible that sex within the marriage is wrong whether to procreate or to express love and to have fun.



quote: 2)It's axiomatic that we think of erotic scenarios during the act. Who can help it that their spouse doesnt happen to take the starring role?



here, i was trying to back up my conjecture with what Jesus stated about lusting equalling adultery. I was not stating that it doesnt happen, but the converse-- it does, which goes back up my explaination to your "spurn" question.



As to "Who can help it that their spouse doesnt happen to take the starring role?", anyone can help it, if they try. In fact, it is even possible to stop "wet dreams". I know this as a personal truth, but this is farther down the road of Christian maturity, and is only with God's help.



quote:It seems as though these "abominations" go against the very grain of human nature. It also seems deconstructive to the Adultery commandment. Wouldn't it seem like a more healthier alternative than actually cheating on your spouse? (I am of the firm belief that as moral animals, we were NOT equipped in our brains for monagamy - it's a social standard, nothing more or less.)

Yes, it does go against the flesh, but not against the adultery commandment. At first "look", it might seem healthier, but back to Jesus' statement, it would be adultery in ones heart. If one wants a healthy relationship, both should work on all aspects of the relationship, and in so doing, it makes it less likely for either party to be tempted to cheat.



We ARE equipped in our brain for monogamy, THAT IS HOW it can be a social standard that (most) people can live up to. But it has to be held important enough to strive toward.



quote:3) It only seems selfish. It's no more selfish than scratching an itch. The urge is there, you're not hurting anybody, if you do it in the privacy of your own space, you can't possibly offend anybody. It is selfish in a relationship because it is scratching an itch, when it should be both parties point to scratch.



quote:Maybe fewer altar boys would get molested by their priests if masturbation was encouraged instead of scorned. Maybe STD's wouldn't be so rampant if more people practiced it. Maybe there would be a decline in the divorce rate.

I disagree, Priests should be allowed to marry, and in so doing, most likely protect a few alter boys. And i think that those who molest were stunted in some way in their childhood, not necessarily by molestation themselves, possibly by the way other kids or adults treated them. Do you think that no priest that molested someone, ever "jacked off"?.. this goes back to what i said before...only it is a step farther... "Also, when one is masturbating, fantasy senerios of other sins may come into play, to make the fantasy more "fun" and erotic.". "A step further" is to say that at one point the sins from thought, "need" to be carried out further..out of the fantasy world and blended into reality.



When i was younger, and lived my life with very little Christian attitude, I was a "bar slut" & masturbated frequently. Masturbation did not curb my appetite for sex, it increased it, which increased the possibility for STDs. And when my first marriage was going bad, my (ex)wife didnt want sex, so i masturbated very often. That didnt curb the appetite either, it just put more strain on the marriage. Maybe if i had put more effort in finding out what she felt was missing in our marriage and less into "relieving" the pressure, we would be still married now. At the time, i felt as if i was trying everything. Now i know that i didnt, but it is too late for that. I can only use what i have learned, toward making my current marriage a success.

Wicca doesn't. It's not harming anyone the last time I checked, so I'm free to fuck myself whenever :-)

I find it hilarious how serious this topic has been made to be. I like that you actually back up your statements mr. extreme.



Wank away friends, it's not a damnable offense.



........I hope not.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

As to "Who can help it that their spouse doesnt happen to take the starring role?", anyone can help it, if they try. In fact, it is even possible to stop "wet dreams".

Why would you want to? That puzzles me. Why fight yourself, especially if you know in your heart that you would never act on it outside of your marital realm?



quote: Yes, it does go against the flesh, but not against the adultery commandment. At first "look", it might seem healthier, but back to Jesus' statement, it would be adultery in ones heart.

If by merely possessing the lustful thoughts in your mind makes you an adulterer from J.C.'s viewpoint, then it seems a cruel absurdity to have a god that 'designed' us to be such an imaginative, horny species equipped with such sensitive, pleasurable genitalia. I still can't understand how the church views masturbation as a "defilement" of self. Wait! That's right! We're not supposed to ask the why-for's. We are just to supposed to adhere to it without ever questioning it. I forgot. Ten thousand pokes in my ass with a red-hot pitchfork for being so bold as to even wonder...

quote: We ARE equipped in our brain for monogamy, THAT IS HOW it can be a social standard that (most) people can live up to. But it has to be held important enough to strive toward.

No we're not. It's a social standard. Evolutionary biologists, psychologists and philosophers have already proven it beyond an arguable doubt. Desmond Morris, in The Naked Apes was hell bent on trying to prove "natural" monagamy drives in our species, but could not account for the ancient civilizations that practiced no such thing. Monagamy evolved as our cultures evolved, and it suits the one we're in right now. It certainly would be in the best interest of the female (speaking from a gene's point of view), since monagamy would mean a higher level of parental investment from her mate. For the most part, the paradox can be explained away as a compromise between males and females. But to say that it is natural, that we are "wired" for it - is bullshit. The compromise between men and women might be the way monagamy has endured for all these years, but it tells nothing of where it originated.

I think Robert Wright said it best in his book The Moral Animal, when he explained monagamy from a Darwinian viewpoint:

Given human nature, monogamy is a straightforward expression of political equality among men. It may be no accident that Christianity, which served as a vehicle for monogamy politically as well as intellectually, has often pitched it's message to the masses as a means of "keeping us all together"



Dawkins touched on it some (no pun) in his book The Selfish Gene. But this is getting too long already. Another time.

quote: It is selfish in a relationship because it is scratching an itch, when it should be both parties point to scratch.

And how many marriages do you think have suffered or ended in divorce because the other person could not ALWAYS be in tune with their lover's needs? It seems unfair to place all of your sensual expectations on another human being who might not experience that same "itch" you are scratching. Why hold your spouse 100% responsible for meeting every one of your sexual whims, when you could pleasure yourself and take some of the responsibility off of them? An unhealthy sex life should be no reason to leave your mate, not if you have two hands and ten fingers of your own. It seems a better alternative than either 1) finding it elsewhere or 2) resenting your spouse for the rest of your life for not being able to scratch that "itch".

Dont get me wrong, I asked for your viewpoints and it's only fair that I give mine back. But I have one more question...

Would your faith still consider it a sin if you and your wife, say, mutually masturbated together in the same room without touching each other? Or does that still go against the "lust" rule? What about the unmarried? Is it still wrong, by your faith, for single people to masturbate if they haven't yet found someone that they deem worthy of spending the rest of their lives with? Please don't preach abstinence. As you mentioned before, you disagree with the catholic churches not allowing priests to marry. Is it because you feel that abstinence is "unnatural" to human beings?

[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 08-08-2004).]

im evangelical ( a branch of christianity, basically we beleive the whole bible to be the word of God, we dont leave shit out) and we dont think its wrong,we dont think is fuckign awsome, its just not wrong

Why would you want to? That puzzles me. Why fight yourself, especially if you know in your heart that you would never act on it outside of your marital realm?

I think in the cases of Albert Fish, Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Bill Clinton, it's been proven that fantasy doesn't always remain fantasy.

If by merely possessing the lustful thoughts in your mind makes you an adulterer from J.C.'s viewpoint, then it seems a cruel absurdity to have a god that 'designed' us to be such an imaginative, horny species equipped with such sensitive, pleasurable genitalia. I still can't understand how the church views masturbation as a "defilement" of self. Wait! That's right! We're not supposed to ask the why-for's. We are just to supposed to adhere to it without ever questioning it. I forgot. Ten thousand pokes in my ass with a red-hot pitchfork for being so bold as to even wonder...

I believe the whole theological aspect of sexuality views masturbation, homosexuality, bestiality, and the like as perversions - inconsequential substitutes that neglect its effective function, namely, procreation. Not to mention that, as far as Jesus and Christianity are concerned, man is born into sin, thus he has sexually immoral thoughts, not the other way around.

Besides, who would have sex if it caused pain instead of pleasure?

No were not. It's a social standard. Evolutionary biologists, psychologists and philosophers have already proven it beyond an arguable doubt.

No they haven't.

Desmond Morris, in The Naked Apes was hell bent on trying to prove "natural monagamy drives in our species, but could not account for the ancient civilizations that practiced no such thing.

<OL TYPE=A>

<LI>What civilizations are you talking about besides Africans and Mormons?

<LI>After an orgasm, the male brain emits a sleep hormone. What survival function could that possibly hold without potentially violating a sexual and territorial security unless we were designed to not fear our female mates screwing the whole herd?

<LI>Even if it is a biological urge to be polygamous, that certainly doesn't make it better by ANY civilizational standards.</OL>

Monagamy evolved as our cultures evolved, and it suits the one we're in right now. It certainly would be in the best interest of the female (speaking from a gene's point of view), since monagamy would mean a higher level of parental investment from her mate. For the most part, the paradox can be explained away as a compromise between males and females. But to say that it is natural, that we are "wired" for it - is bullshit. The compromise between men and women might be the way monagamy has endured for all these years, but it tells nothing of where it originated.

Humanity has not changed biologically since the end of the ice age. How big a gap in how small a time frame are you jumping here, having an entire species going from a polygamous to a monogamous instinct simultaneously?

I think Robert Wright said it best in his book The Moral Animal, when he explained monagamy from a Darwinian viewpoint:

Given human nature, monogamy is a straightforward expression of political equality among men. It may be no accident that Christianity, which served as a vehicle for monogamy politically as well as intellectually, has often pitched it's message to the masses as a means of "keeping us all together"

This man clearly has no understanding of human nature. Neither monogamy as a principle nor men as a species have anything to do with equality in any aspect, least of all sexuality.

And how many marriages do you think have suffered or ended in divorce because the other person could not ALWAYS be in tune with their lover's needs?

How many of those marriages began out of a concern for financial benefits?

It seems unfair to place all of your sensual expectations on another human being who might not experience that same "itch" you are scratching. Why hold your spouse 100% responsible for meeting every one of your sexual whims, when you could pleasure yourself and take some of the responsibility off of them?

<OL TYPE=1>

<LI>Because, as a woman, she is designed FOR fulfilling sexual desire.

<LI>Because only caged animals bereft of natural sexual fulfillment masturbate.

</OL>

An unhealthy sex life should be no reason to leave your mate, not if you have two hands and ten fingers of your own. It seems a better alternative than either 1) finding it elsewhere or 2) resenting your spouse for the rest of your life for not being able to scratch that "itch".

<OL TYPE=1>

<LI>Finding it elsewhere means that your sexual desires have not been fulfilled by your wife; thus, you chose your mate poorly.

<LI>Allowing yourself to cater to relentless, unfulfillable fantasies can make you resent your wife for not fulfilling them anyway. Who wins in this war?</OL>

Would your faith still consider it a sin if you and your wife, say, mutually masturabted together in the same room without touching each other? Or does that still go against the "lust" rule? What about the unmarried? Is it still wrong, by your faith, for single people to masturbate if they haven't yet found someone that they deem worthy of spending the rest of their lives with? Please don't preach abstinence. As you mentioned before, you disagree with the catholic churches not allowing priests to marry. Is it because you feel that abstinence is "unnatural" to human beings?

One more list:

<OL TYPE=1>

<LI>If you masturbated with your wife without touching each other, there's some significant wiring problems in your brain.

<LI>I don't know what the Christian response is to that. I mean, how would one accept that someone is sexually attractive if lustful thoughts of sex are forbidden?

<LI>Prince Siddartha did not allow women to join his Buddhist cult until close to his death because he felt that women could not break themselves of the desires of sex and motherhood before they died. True men, on the other hand, can direct their attention away from sexuality and focus on achieving integral wholeness, without the distractions of woman. Abstinence is wholly unnatural to human beings. That's what makes people that abstain from sex more psychically complete than modern, sex-obsessed man.</OL>

you people sure are idiots...

A)if you had a wife/partner, why would you need to wank? if you don't have sex, you're either too old, or mentally ill.

B) since when does every human on the planet have a partner? what about those of us that have nobody? if we didn't wank, we'd go insane.

C)damn it people, quit taking this so seriously. you aren't hurting anybody by jacking off, it's a perfectly natural thing to do. it's been proven by sexual experts time and time again.

To: Tyrant

Re: The Lists

I think in the cases of Albert Fish, Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Bill Clinton, it's been proven that fantasy doesn't always remain fantasy.

A miniscule percentage of the human race. An oddity of personality, and not a good comparison to human beings on average.

I believe the whole theological aspect of sexuality views masturbation, homosexuality, bestiality, and the like as perversions - inconsequential substitutes that neglect its effective function, namely, procreation.

You make it sound so... clinical and mechanical. And it's nowhere in the same realm as bestiality or homosexual "perversions". The theological aspect of sexuality doesn't seem to take into account the natural tendencies we possess to feel good.

Humanity has not changed biologically since the end of the ice age. How big a gap in how small a time frame are you jumping here, having an entire species going from a polygamous to a monogamous instinct simultaneously?

I was attempting to look closer at not only the recent cultural shifts, but also the bigger picture of how our tendencies came to be "shaped". And I certainly don't support polygamy in our modern times and social structure. It would be economic suicide for both sexes!

-Because, as a woman, she is designed FOR fulfilling sexual desire.

- Because only caged animals bereft of natural sexual fulfillment masturbate.

That is absurd. And false. In short: You're tripping.

Allowing yourself to cater to relentless, unfulfillable fantasies can make you resent your wife for not fulfilling them anyway. Who wins in this war?

Relentless, yes. Because your sexual urge hardly ever goes away. Resenting your wife or husband for not fullfilling your every fantasy is selfish, unrealistic, and ridiculous. No one can be who you want them to be 100% of the time. There truly is no "war", but if you view it that way, then you certainly are setting yourself up for hardships and all that ugly resentment.

One more list:

1.If you masturbated with your wife without touching each other, there's some significant wiring problems in your brain.

That truly is some hardcore, uptight, Stick-Up-Your-Ass thinking. I am beginning to feel sorry for your significant other, and that is getting ENTIRELY off the original point of this 'Religion Spurning Masturbation' theme.

True men, on the other hand, can direct their attention away from sexuality and focus on achieving integral wholeness, without the distractions of woman.

I bet you are thumping your chest all Tarzan-like with your left fist and ... doing you-know-what with your right fist.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I think Tyrant had better answers to your questions than i would give, so i'll try to be brief..

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Why would you want to? That puzzles me. Why fight yourself, especially if you know in your heart that you would never act on it outside of your marital realm?

Does anyone really KNOW that they would NEVER "act on it outside of your marital realm"? I saw a movie along time ago where one character asked whether it was better to resist temptation or to avoid it. Pertaining to your thread and your post (Why would you want to? That puzzles me.) If you can avoid temptation, wouldnt that also be resisting, thus keeping your (sexual) mind toward your spouse and that relationship?

quote:I still can't understand how the church views masturbation as a "defilement" of self. Wait! That's right! We're not supposed to ask the why-for's. We are just to supposed to adhere to it without ever questioning it. I forgot. Ten thousand pokes in my ass with a red-hot pitchfork for being so bold as to even wonder...

The reason the church has this view is from the Bible, i think it is from the part that some guy was forced to take his (dead) brother's wife, and (purposely)"spilled his seed" on the ground. And probably from the laws in Leviticus.

As to your "We're not supposed to ask the why-for's. We are just to supposed to adhere to it without ever questioning it."

This was the attitude of the early (catholic) church, which viewed that since most people couldnt read and even if they could, have not been schooled in theology, they were too ignorant to understand what the Bible taught.

Most Christian churches dont (completely) hold this "ignorance" view anymore, and encourage learning God's Word. However, concidering the simple size of the Bible, the language interpretations, the history, etc. i find it amazing that anyone grasps much more than a small portion of God's message even after a lifetime of study. i've heard a story of a seminary teacher that assigned to students one passage from the Bible, and to find 50 meanings of that verse, and the next week-- to find 50 more.

quote:quote: We ARE equipped in our brain for monogamy, THAT IS HOW it can be a social standard that (most) people can live up to. But it has to be held important enough to strive toward.

No we're not. It's a social standard.

Let me rephrase: We ARE equipped IN our BRAIN for monogamy, that is HOW we can make it be a social standard. If we were not equipped, we could not accept it as a social standard. And if we could not accept it as a social standard, then that standard would never be.

quote:Given human nature, monogamy is a straightforward expression of political equality among men.

Given human nature, polygamy probably gave way to monogamy because it is expensive. Not only in terms of money, but in time and emotions. (this was not meant as a cut against women. I just couldnt think of a better way to say it.)

quote:And how many marriages do you think have suffered or ended in divorce because the other person could not ALWAYS be in tune with their lover's needs? It seems unfair to place all of your sensual expectations on another human being who might not experience that same "itch" you are scratching.

I dont know how many. But if you look at old couples (married for 50+ years), they dont seem to expect as much OF marriage as our society seems to... meaning "soul mate". I know there is alot more to marriage, but i'm not trying to write a book, just trying to respond to you post/questions.

quote: An unhealthy sex life should be no reason to leave your mate,

I'm not sure if you are refering to what i said about my 1st marriage, but this was not the reason for the divorce, only something that happened as a result of the marriage failing. And masturbation was what I thought would be a way to relieve my tension.. AND give her, her space to work things out in her head. Which didnt work because it increased my desire for her (?begging?) which in turn, increased the problems she (felt) that she needed to deal with. Which caused resentment on both our parts.

quote:Would your faith still consider it a sin if you and your wife, say, mutually masturbated together in the same room without touching each other? Or does that still go against the "lust" rule? What about the unmarried? Is it still wrong, by your faith, for single people to masturbate if they haven't yet found someone that they deem worthy of spending the rest of their lives with? Please don't preach abstinence. As you mentioned before, you disagree with the catholic churches not allowing priests to marry. Is it because you feel that abstinence is "unnatural" to human beings?

1) mutual masturbation-- i dont know, but i doubt it, because it would be "playing" which would probably lead to "making love"(i hate that term cuz it sounds like fake romantic BS to me)

2) "lust rule"-- doubtful, if you are married, i think that would be love, not lust, but maybe you are defining lust as passion or interchangibly

3)unmarried/non preaching abstinence/married priests---yes, i believe by my faith, that it is wrong. sorry if i sound like im preaching, i dont feel as if i am, just trying to answer your questions. For singles to masturbate, you used, as an arguement against my "preaching" abstinence, my view that priests should be allowed to marry. Apples and oranges... single people vs. married priests, so i guess i dont completely understand the question... but yes, i do feel that abstinence is "unnatural" to human beings because God designed us as sexual creatures and He said, "Go forth and multiply".. either that or we should do more arithmetic http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Now, i am not judging anyone who has, will, or is currently masturbating.. and you may feel as though i am a hypocrite (because i have admitted). I am simply trying to answer your topic as honestly as i can. And i tried to include (some) theological doctrine.... I am only making this "disclaimer" because a couple of people said to the effect, "lighten up", and if you honestly wanted answers to your questions, it is only fair to take you serious.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

To: Tyrant

Re: The Lists

I think in the cases of Albert Fish, Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Bill Clinton, it's been proven that fantasy doesn't always remain fantasy.

A miniscule percentage of the human race. An oddity of personality, and not a good comparison to human beings on average.

Sure, these are extreme cases and a minority percentage of the population, but it does show what my point was. That fantasy can get mixed with reality and bring out other sins. It is a good comparison because it does happen to "normal" persons. i.e. priestly alter-boy abuse, sexual abuse of 1000s of children, rape etc., and all probably started with some sort of fantasys.

Mooooooooooooooooooooo.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I think Tyrant had better answers to your questions than i would give, so i'll try to be brief..

nah, your's was much better and less hostile. At least you admitted to it http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote: i dont feel as if i am, just trying to answer your questions. Noted, and appreciated. I probably should have rephrased my original question. I understand why religions spurn it - they have their moral reasons, and I suppose reason is reason, no matter how you look at it or disagree with it. I truly was more interested in the individual viewpoints, and how religious people "dealt" with the guilt associated with pleasuring themselves. This might even be in the wrong forum. Hell, I don't know...

quote: Given human nature, polygamy probably gave way to monogamy because it is expensive. Not only in terms of money, but in time and emotions. (this was not meant as a cut against women. I just couldnt think of a better way to say it.) [QUOTE]

It's more convenient. Less costly. I can agree with you there.

[QUOTE] I am simply trying to answer your topic as honestly as i can. And i tried to include (some) theological doctrine.... I am only making this "disclaimer" because a couple of people said to the effect, "lighten up", and if you honestly wanted answers to your questions, it is only fair to take you serious.

Fair, indeed. Your input is what I asked for. This is not the type of questioning I could sit around a fire with my real-time christian friends and acquaintances and talk about openly. Shame takes too much of a stranglehold and people just clam up or change the subject.

I heard that angles are not suppos to have any sexual organs, maybe it is looked down upon because god dosent want to make the angels jelous..

wow that soulds really dumb after looking back on it.

quote:Originally posted by oland:

im evangelical ( a branch of christianity, basically we beleive the whole bible to be the word of God, we dont leave shit out) and we dont think its wrong,we dont think is fuckign awsome, its just not wrong

First of all, you claim to be an evangelical Christian, yet you completely misuse the terminology, and don't exhibit the behavior of someone that truly does belong to this denomination of Christianity.

Though there are many definitions for 'evangelical', I believe that the one ultimately defining it would be:

Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal.

If you follow the Bible without leaving anything out, then you would truly understand that masturbation is a direct result of lust, which is a sin.

Second, we are not just talking about the ACT of masturbation here. We are talking about the condition of our hearts and souls.

If you are imagining someone naked in a sexual manner, or having sex, then you are committing an act of lust.

LUST

Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.

Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.

Pleasure; relish.

intr.v. lust·ed, lust·ing, lusts

To have an intense or obsessive desire, especially one that is sexual.

Numbers 15:39

You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD , that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by going after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes.

Proverbs 6 (please read the whole chapter, if you can)

23 For these commands are a lamp,

this teaching is a light,

and the corrections of discipline

are the way to life,

24 keeping you from the immoral woman,

from the smooth tongue of the wayward wife.

25 Do not lust in your heart after her beauty

or let her captivate you with her eyes,

26 for the prostitute reduces you to a loaf of bread,

and the adulteress preys upon your very life.

Matthew 5:28

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Ephesians 4:19

Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

Colossians 3:5

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

1 John 2:16

For everything in the world – the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does – comes not from the Father but from the world.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5

3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control his own body[1] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God;

Even if the individual you are thinking about is your spouse, the thoughts are lustful in orgination, and it is still considered a sin. (I can explain that in more detail if you'd like, but for this particular topic, it does not bear much relevance)

The SIN is what makes it wrong. It is written in God's word, which you claim to read entirely, without prejudice.

quote:Originally posted by Township Rebellion:

you people sure are idiots...

A)if you had a wife/partner, why would you need to wank? if you don't have sex, you're either too old, or mentally ill.

B) since when does every human on the planet have a partner? what about those of us that have nobody? if we didn't wank, we'd go insane.

C)damn it people, quit taking this so seriously. you aren't hurting anybody by jacking off, it's a perfectly natural thing to do. it's been proven by sexual experts time and time again.

Yes, by sexual experts that don't believe in God, and want to wank off themselves, without restraint or guilt.

quote: Originally posted by Digital_Savior Even if the individual you are thinking about is your spouse, the thoughts are lustful in orgination, and it is still considered a sin. (I can explain that in more detail if you'd like, but for this particular topic, it does not bear much relevance)

I can't even partially digest that, but I must say that is the most asinine thing I've ever read pertaining to sin, to date.

Hmm, so this means that solitary masturbation is not allowed but mutual masturubation with your lover is.

You people are wasting your lives. Why can't people just live how they want and if they're going to be judged at the end, so be it. This post is pointless and in the wrong place.

quote:Originally posted by Keltoiberserker:

Hmm, so this means that solitary masturbation is not allowed but mutual masturubation with your lover is.

i think you may have misread the intention of the post... She was asking me about my faith(the religious teaching, not the act of faith), whether that doctrine felt that mutual maturbation would be wrong. To which i replied that i didnt know-- and then i gave my opinion of the matter.

My opinion is not what counts. What matters is what God has said, and how we chose to obey or reject God's Word.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

You people are wasting your lives. Why can't people just live how they want and if they're going to be judged at the end, so be it. This post is pointless and in the wrong place.

Could you define what wasting life connotes?

The way i see it, if there is no God (therefore, no judgement) then everything anyone does, is a waste. The thing is, God does allow us to live how we want (free will). But He has told us the consequences of not obeying Him (that there will be "judgement day"), and He also told us how we can avoid a bad judgement (faith in Jesus the Christ). AND He also told us what to do once we have accepted Jesus (teach all nations).

Well as self-aware organisms I think we should enjoy our lives rather than debating their nature. Humans crave new experiances, and I guess my monkey brain wants to see it's contemporaries fulfilling that craving in order to increase the chances of it's own survival. So in other words, subconsiously I see you people as wasting your lives because all the time you're debating bullshit you're not gaining experiances that in the close-nit tribal society my subconcious evolved in would have increased my chances of passing on my genes.

If we go to heaven when we die and live eternally there, what meaning would our lives have there? Is it possible to waste your heavenly existance? Things only have relevence inside the systems they affect, existance on Heaven is only an extension of existance on Earth.

Ok, so living a good life on Earth can only serve to make your conciousness happy, but the same can be said for going to either heaven or hell. If there is no afterlife, surely spending a part of your life debating it's nature that you could be spending having fun is resigning yourself to an equivalent of hell, an inferior experiance for your conciousness? Isn't it best just to be yourself, live how you'd be most happiest, and if your character is judged at the end, so be it? This philosophy can only make any potential diety's job easier, and pretending you're a good person probably won't wash anyway.

EDIT: I'm aware of the hypocrisy of this post, but I've got a spare half-hour before work and no guitar strings. I'm sure most of the rest of you don't really think about religion outside this forum either, but this is directed to the likes of Sniper Piper who devote their lives to this bollocks.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 08-11-2004).]

First: Township, you've summed it up wonderfully (as you tend to do). Good work.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

i think you may have misread the intention of the post... She was asking me about my faith(the religious teaching, not the act of faith), whether that doctrine felt that mutual maturbation would be wrong. To which i replied that i didnt know-- and then i gave my opinion of the matter.

My opinion is not what counts. What matters is what God has said, and how we chose to obey or reject God's Word.

You're an idiot. If God even does exist he's not going to send you to hell for doing something that doesn't hurt anybody else.

I'd really like to see the people who feel that masturbation is "immoral" address all three of Township's points.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

You're an idiot. If God even does exist he's not going to send you to hell for doing something that doesn't hurt anybody else.

I'd really like to see the people who feel that masturbation is "immoral" address all three of Township's points.

I'm an idiot who has lived life, experienced many things, and tried not to cut people down that have a different viewpoint as mine, and I very seldom speak harshly... that being said... take your head out of your duffle-bag and pay attention.

The original question was: why do religions reject masturbation to be good and say that it is a sin. Which i attempted to answer honestly. I did not SAY that masturbating is a one way ticket to hell. I did say, however, why it is a sin. And if YOU THINK that christians teach that the only way to Heaven, is to be WITHOUT sin by ones own accord, you should shut your mouth and listen before you make such ignorant comments. The PURPOSE for God's Law is to (1)define what is sin (2)show that we all have sinned and that no one DESERVES to go to Heaven. Once you understand this, then and only then, can you realize that God is merciful by giving us a way out (Messiah).

In case you need it spelled out, the definition of sin is --are you paying attention-- disobiedience of God; rejecting God in our rebelion and by our rebellion. We all sin. There is only one way out. The Messiah, whom i know to be Jesus.

As for Township's three points, they really werent worthy of addressing... but just for your entertainment...

A)if you had a wife/partner, why would you need to wank? if you don't have sex, you're either too old, or mentally ill.

As was already said, people do it for fun. To go back to the "self-fish" subject, its emotionally easier. You only need to please one of the people you love (yourself).

As to "too old", why do you think old people want viagra? Somethings might not work the way they used to, but the brain is the most important sexual organ, so the desire for sex is still there.

B) since when does every human on the planet have a partner? what about those of us that have nobody? if we didn't wank, we'd go insane.

This was already covered too. Refer above to single people. Trust me, you wont go insane from not "wanking". In fact, maybe if you spent less time wanking, you might find a partner. Besides, sex is only a small part of a good relationship.

C)damn it people, quit taking this so seriously. you aren't hurting anybody by jacking off, it's a perfectly natural thing to do. it's been proven by sexual experts time and time again.

Natural, yes. But so is sin. And believe it or not, there are many ways this can hurt... just two examples: When you get married, try telling your spouse that you wont have sex with him/her because you prefer "wanking". Or try telling them that you are going to have a "wank" cuz they didnt satisfy you. Im doubt if your spouse wont be hurt.

As to "damn it people, quit taking this so seriously."

This too, has already been addressed. Like I said, shut up and pay attention. I would be surprised if you havent been told that before.

quote:When you get married, try telling your spouse that you wont have sex with him/her because you prefer "wanking". Or try telling them that you are going to have a "wank" cuz they didnt satisfy you. Im doubt if your spouse wont be hurt.

Well, if you're married I can be pretty sure you wouldn't rather masturbate, unless you shouldn't be together in which case you're probably both already feeling pretty bad. This is a special case, anyway.

quote: As was already said, people do it for fun. To go back to the "self-fish" subject, its emotionally easier. You only need to please one of the people you love (yourself).

You're one of those christians that doesn't believe in sex before marriage, aren't you? That or you've never had a girlfriend. Seriously, no virgin would say this.

quote:This was already covered too. Refer above to single people. Trust me, you wont go insane from not "wanking". In fact, maybe if you spent less time wanking, you might find a partner. Besides, sex is only a small part of a good relationship.

If it wasn't for the oestrogen release after masturbation, everyone would ahve a serious testosterone imbalance and be far more agressive. It's evolutionarily advantageous to be more aggresive when your body thinks it's not getting any.

I apologise if that's not spiritual enough for you, but that's what happens when you're rational and realise that bodies are just interesting arragements of energy and matter. Sorry.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

You're one of those christians that doesn't believe in sex before marriage, aren't you? That or you've never had a girlfriend. Seriously, no virgin would say this.

As a matter of fact, yes, i believe that you should wait until marriage. And this is said from personal experience by having already made mistakes. By the way, i am currently married to a fantastic woman, and my ex-wife was/is a good woman too. In fact, we are still friends... we just could make the marriage work and she "threw in the towel".

quote:If it wasn't for the oestrogen release after masturbation, everyone would ahve a serious testosterone imbalance and be far more agressive.

Sorry, this is false, at least in the long run. The agressiveness is alson from that person's disposition and (more so because the two things feed on each other) from dwelling on "not gettin' none".

OK guys(and gals), There are two kinds of people in the world:

1) Those who masturbate.



And

2) Those who lie about it.



To which group do you belong?

Lighten up folks!

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

OK guys(and gals), There are two kinds of people in the world:

1) Those who masturbate.



And

2) Those who lie about it.



To which group do you belong?

Lighten up folks!





1 & 2

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

OK guys(and gals), There are two kinds of people in the world:

1) Those who masturbate.



And

2) Those who lie about it.



To which group do you belong?

Lighten up folks!







#1

I don't deny it usually. Only around girls that I am really interested in, even then I kinda tell the truth, "Yeah, I guess, once in a while. Hey that's a really pretty shirt http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)"

The most intelligent creatures on earth masturbate or have sex for pleasure, e.g. dolphins and lions, and most humans. Well, except christian humans.

quote:As a matter of fact, yes, i believe that you should wait until marriage. And this is said from personal experience by having already made mistakes. By the way, i am currently married to a fantastic woman, and my ex-wife was/is a good woman too. In fact, we are still friends... we just could make the marriage work and she "threw in the towel".

Hmm, it seems someone missed the point. No one in their right mind would choose masturbation over sex.

quote:Sorry, this is false, at least in the long run. The agressiveness is alson from that person's disposition and (more so because the two things feed on each other) from dwelling on "not gettin' none".

Consider two people, one who can't get laid but masturbates, and so while his concious mind is less happy than if he was in a steady relationship, or at least maintaining a seris of one night stands, his subconcious thinks he's a sex god and he's a very docile person, and another who also can't get laid and doesn't masturbate because he thinks it makes him a bad person... the second person is more aggressive because his 'animal brain' also 'thinks' he can't get laid (or rather, he has a far higher testosterone level), as well as him conciously being aware that he's a social failiure. Unless, of course, both of them are saving themselves for marriage, in which case they'll both feel like martyrs to the cause of romance conciously, but the second one will still be more stressed/agressive.

"Disposition"... what the fuck? You mean personality? Well, of course some people will have had experiances which affect their personality and how they react to certain situations, but their body chemistry at the time of the situation is a factor too.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 08-13-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I can't even partially digest that, but I must say that is the most asinine thing I've ever read pertaining to sin, to date.

Well, then you obviosuly don't understand the nature of lust.

Lust is lust, no matter who it is for.

quote:Originally posted by Mr.Happy:

The most intelligent creatures on earth masturbate or have sex for pleasure, e.g. dolphins and lions, and most humans. Well, except christian humans.

Wow...that's pretty ignorant.

No one said we don't masturbate. We said you shouldn't lust, because it's a sin.

It still happens. *laughs*

Please continue to make your valid points. They are entertaining.

Actually I think it is much more simple than all of that.

Religion is a very powerful form of control, this has been said by many many people.

That control starts with sex. By making something a sin,(something which everyone does) you immediately place everyone in a position of initial guilt. You have already sinned, now you need to come to me so that I can tell you what to do about it.

Like most things though one person says its bad because they did it and felt guilty about it now its necessary to make everyone else feel guilty about it in order to make myself feel better.

<A HREF="http://img69.exs.cx/img69/9387/kittens1.jpg">http://img69.exs.cx/img69/9387/kittens1.jpg" width="90" height="90 (http://img69.exs.cx/img69/9387/kittens1.jpg" width="90" height="90)</A>

quote: quote:As a matter of fact, yes, i believe that you should wait until marriage. And this is said from personal experience by having already made mistakes. By the way, i am currently married to a fantastic woman, and my ex-wife was/is a good woman too. In fact, we are still friends... we just could make the marriage work and she "threw in the towel".

Hmm, it seems someone missed the point. No one in their right mind would choose masturbation over sex.

I dont think a point was missed. I was answering your point that i BELIEVE one should wait. And was responding to the virgin comment. (1) i was trying not to be crass

(2)i was pointing out that i have made "lived up" to my beliefs.

Now, are you saying that the only reasons married people masturbate is if they (1) have a mental disorder

(2)bad relationship?... Doubtful, which goes back to what i said about WHY it is a selfish act.

As to your comment about testosterone levels being directly linked to aggression levels, there have been studies that have showed that the increase in testosterone only increases aggression for a short time ( few days to a few weeks, if memory serves), after which the aggression declines markedly. I'll see if i can still find some references.

quote:"Disposition"... what the fuck? You mean personality? Well, of course some people will have had experiances which affect their personality and how they react to certain situations, but their body chemistry at the time of the situation is a factor too.

No, i did mean disposition. Infants do have different dispositions before their personality developes. But I guess that i did combine the concepts in my statement...sorry.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Well, then you obviosuly don't understand the nature of lust.

Lust is lust, no matter who it is for.

It just seems like you're describing all sexual adoration as the eeeh-vul Lust. It's almost as if you are suggesting that lust does not need to exist, that our urge to multiply and partner up with the opposite sex is strictly for ceremonial and breeding purposes. It even appear as though you are saying that lusting after one's own SPOUSE is wrong and unnecessary.

What would cause two people to choose to have sex with one another, if they couldn't listen to their screaming genitals? Is recognizing the fact that another person turns you on considered lust?

Would the absence of lust really serve us? If we weren't at all tuned in to our own genitalia and the emotions they tweak in us, would the chills, thrills and excitement of meshing with other human beings still exist? If we couldn't listen to our own screaming genitals and realize that another person turns us on, how could we possibly consent to sex?! Would sex become something mechanical and polite, like a handshake?

Another question, for those of you who either obstain entirely, or also live by the philosophy that lust is bad and should be avoided, if possible, at all costs - How do you talk yourself out of it? How in the world do you pull the reverse-psychology on yourself to make those feelings dormant and non-essential? "Through my lord Jesus Christ" is not an acceptable answer. I'm a detail monger and truly am curious as to how you side-step the urges.

Wank wank wank....

Wank wank wank....

Wank that woody, wank that woody.

awwwww wank wank wank....

wank wank wank....

wank that woody!