What's your opinion on....

[ArtGuy]

You've missed the point. SEX was the entire point. Masturbation is a sexual act-- that puts it in the realm of sexual activities where there are wrong/right actions. Adultery, lust, fornication, etc. are all sexual acts. We apply the same principles to determine why those actions are wrong as well.

Masturbation is a sexually immoral action. Thus, it's wrong. Why is it sexually immoral? See my previous posts.

It's a sexual activity, sure. And? It's not adultery, it's not fornication, and it's not lust. You say that it's wrong because it's sexuall immoral, but that's begging the question. I can say that it's right because it's not sexually immoral, and we're back to square one.

Can you prove, scripturally, that masturbation is necessarily lustful? Can you even give me a good definition of lust?

The Bible doesn't say anything explitly about pornography, but we know it's wrong because we can apply biblical principles to the situation.

Pornography is wrong for a whole host of reasons, most notably that it typically involves fornication, which is expressly forbidden. It's not the same thing. Not at all.

What is one of the reasons homosexual love is forbidden? It's fruitless. So too is the act of masturbation.

Fruitfulness has nothing to do with it, which you would know if you bothered to read the writings of Solomon. I know that as a Catholic you have a pretty strict view of sex, but I'm going to assume that you're not one of those who views sex as inherently evil. That said, what of sex when the woman is past the age at which she can bear children? What if the woman has had a hysterectomy, or is sterile? What if the man is shooting blanks? What if you have sex during a time when you know the woman isn't ovulating? Those are all fruitless acts of sex. Are they also immoral?

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

the bible says nothing about abortion specifically. nor does it say explicitly that there is a trinity. but there is a trinity and abortion is still wrong. your entire argument about it not being mentioned specifically is ridiculous, as demonstated by the abortion thing.

So, my argument begins:
"The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

"Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices."

I find the 20th centuries foremost philosopher of phenomenology , John Paul II, to hit the target quite well here.

Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviours involving culturally normative aspects of sexual expression that increase in frequency or intensity so as to substantially interfere with the expression of the capacity for reciprocal, affectionate sexual activity.
These sexual fantasies, urges, or activities cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
These sexual fantasies, urges or activities do no [sic] occur exclusively during a episode of another primary Axis psychiatric condition (e.g. mania/hypomania), psychoactive substance abuse (e.g. alcohol, cocaine, amphetamine) or a general medical condition.

I believe that is from the DSM III-IV, but the citation I found it in is "Paraphilia-Related Disorders: A proposal for a unified classification of nonparaphilic hypersexuality disorders" by Martin P Kafka 2001. Basically, it tells of the affects sexual activities such as masturbation should it be chronic. The article, however, only speaks about porn addictions and masterbation, not so much conjugal relations of married couples. But the first paragraph of the quote is interesting. Culturally normative aspects of sexual expression that increase in frequency and intensity and eventually interferes with the expression of reciprocal, affectionate sexual activity. Basically, it gets in the way of your relationship with your partner. And because it is a habit, its tough to stop. If it gets to disorder level, then it can cause a person to "withdraw from sexual encounters with a partner in preference to engage in unconventional sexual activities that become more sexually arousing than 'vanilla sex.' This may promote extramarital encounters, reliance on masturbation for sexual activity, or pair-bond dysfunction." (p. 232 Kafka).

A list of the paraphilia disorders is as follows.
Compulsive masturbation: Masturbation is a primary sexual outlet even during a stable intimate relationships, most commonly at least once a day.

Protracted promiscuity Something we as christians shouldnt be engaging in, so its not related to this.

Pornography dependence a persistent, repetitive pattern of dependence on pornographic materials.

Sounds like this is what ArtGuy has alluded to. It doesnt know moderation. Its a desire of the flesh.

At any rate, what if you're seeing someone, and you love her? Is it a sin to think, "Gee, it'll be nice to make love to her someday."? Is it a sin to think of her fondly and provocatively in the context of loving union? Hardly.

Ever read "Without a Trace"? It contains a story of a poor girl who thought of sex in a loving union, then started masterbating, then got heavily into porn. Now, visualizing is basically porn, because while you can imagine love, love only exists between two or more entities, and your thoughts are not actual entities. This classifies as pornography.

Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners

Again from John Paul II

Furthermore

It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense.

So, I think that debunks that argument, ArtGuy.

In Christ
BWOG

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Fruitfulness has nothing to do with it, which you would know if you bothered to read the writings of Solomon. I know that as a Catholic you have a pretty strict view of sex, but I'm going to assume that you're not one of those who views sex as inherently evil. That said, what of sex when the woman is past the age at which she can bear children? What if the woman has had a hysterectomy, or is sterile? What if the man is shooting blanks? What if you have sex during a time when you know the woman isn't ovulating? Those are all fruitless acts of sex. Are they also immoral?

Okay, in defense of CatholicXian, here is what the Catholic Church says about conjugal love.

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
CCC 2360

1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."
CCC 1643

1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift," the child.
CCC 1664

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

Now, I dont want to start on contraception, but this quote does apply to the current discussion because infertility is not a refusal to be open. It is an inability, though all the right things are being done. This quote demonstrates that the refusal is wrong and that one can use the periods of infertility to have sex because it is still open to life, even though it is extremely unlikely. Masturbation is not, nor will ever be open to life.

Now, here is another series of quotes on sexuality (no, im not trying to troll, just make a concise argument).

2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
CCC 2332

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
CCC 2360

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."
CCC 2361

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.
The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.
CCC 2337

2395 Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery.
CCC 2395

2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God's plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.
CCC 2336

Now, I ask, where does masturbation seem to fit in with God's plan? Sexuality fits in, and in defense of CatholicXian, the Catholic Church says as long as the sexual act is open to life (meaning nothing artificial getting in the way), then it promotes the virtue of chastity and is a model for God's plan of sex and a mirror for the communion in Heaven.[/b]

 

[CatholicXian]

It's a sexual activity, sure. And? It's not adultery, it's not fornication, and it's not lust. You say that it's wrong because it's sexuall immoral, but that's begging the question. I can say that it's right because it's not sexually immoral, and we're back to square one.

Again, you have to read my previous posts. Masturbation is a sexual act.. can we agree on that?
BECAUSE masturbation is a sexual act, it falls under sexual morality/theology. Masturbation, in this light, is immoral because it is selfish, fruitless, stinted "love"... "love of self". Which is inheritantly the same for adultery, fornication, etc.--using the other to please/gratify myself. Masturbation is a misuse of the sexual organs for one's own sexual gratification.

Can you prove, scripturally, that masturbation is necessarily lustful? Can you even give me a good definition of lust?

Since masturbation is not mentioned by name, I can't give you an explicit Scripture reference, but I think it's safe to conclude that masturbation includes general "sinful" principles as fornication, adultery (sexual acts outside of marriage, fruitless, etc.).

Lust is a concupiscient desire for self-gratification. It sees other persons as objects rather than subjects, and treats sexuality as a means of gratification rather than an expression of self-giving love.

Pornography is wrong for a whole host of reasons, most notably that it typically involves fornication, which is expressly forbidden. It's not the same thing. Not at all.

But bubble bath is comparable to masturbation? Come on...

Pornography is photography/filmography (I've heard this argued before, I vehemently disagree, but bare with me for the sake of argument). Pornography is a viewing of sexual intercourse as object and self-gratification by those with no right to witness the sexual act. The Bible does not explicitly say anything about watching sex... but we still know it's wrong.

Fruitfulness has nothing to do with it, which you would know if you bothered to read the writings of Solomon. I know that as a Catholic you have a pretty strict view of sex, but I'm going to assume that you're not one of those who views sex as inherently evil. That said, what of sex when the woman is past the age at which she can bear children? What if the woman has had a hysterectomy, or is sterile? What if the man is shooting blanks? What if you have sex during a time when you know the woman isn't ovulating? Those are all fruitless acts of sex. Are they also immoral?

Fruitlessness has everything to do with it. Homosexual acts, etc. are intrinsically fruitless. Nothing can change that. "Sterile" sex, whether the sterility is intentional or not is not intrinsically fruitless-- it is meant to be fruitful and open to life--situations that arise from needed surgeries, or from natural sterility are UNnatural deformities because we are meant to be fertile ("be fruitful and multiply"), but these situations are often beyond our control. (Yes, I would say that intentional sterility... surgeries intended to make oneself sterile, condoms, etc. are sinful behaviors. Having sex during a woman's infertile period is natural--we are doing nothing to distort the fertility of the person, and we still can engage in sexual intercourse while being open to life)
Homosexuality, fruitless by nature, and masturbation (also fruitless), are unnatural acts that are within our control. They both distort the meaning of sex as a fruitful act of self-gift.

Yeah, I have a pretty strict view of sex (do a search, a while ago while Quath was around, he and I had a big discussion about condoms, etc.), but do I think sex is evil/bad? Not at all. I love sex. Sex is great. But it also has a proper expression that lies within the bounds of the marriage covenant between a husband, wife, and God.


EDITED to add:
Links to the threads I mentioned:
Part One
Part Two

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

“Is Masturbation a sin?†Now it is true that the Bible does not say anything explicit condemning, however; the Bible does say something about doing things to glorify God. So ask yourself, is masturbation glorifying God?

 

[GundamZero]

I can see that the purpose of this thread is not to glorify the Father through the teaching of the untaught. It seems to be many of us coming to merely postulate and debase the Word of God. We have been told by Christ that lust is wrong. If you have sex with anyone but your wife or have sexual thoughts toward anyone but your wife, then it is sin, plain and simple. There are many things that the Bible does not directly address, but through our walk with God we can clearly see what is and isn't sin. I cannot see God staring down at a young man or woman having just pleasured themselves in such a way and been happy with it. But is Scripture and your own personal love for Christ does not give you the insight to come to such a conclusion, then what is the point? If we will not lay down our stupid and petty denominational doctrine to simply teach rather than argue, than our Faith is not really a Faith it is a religion. I am taken aback by the fact that when wrote what Christ spoke, I was not encouraged or aided, but rather my Biblical literacy was questioned and I was insulted. This thread is clear evidence of selfishness that has taken these forums, and more largely, the clouded academia that has corrupted the execution of the ministry. I must admit my own failure in putting it in the simple terms that Nocturnal_Principal_X used, and I am surprised that no one else out it that way. Perhaps I have run my mouth, but this mishandling of a simple question speaks poorly of our collective faith. Draw what you will from this post, but I'll not respond in this thread again, as I suspect that this post as well will be chastised abused.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I can see that the purpose of this thread is not to glorify the Father through the teaching of the untaught. It seems to be many of us coming to merely postulate and debase the Word of God. We have been told by Christ that lust is wrong. If you have sex with anyone but your wife or have sexual thoughts toward anyone but your wife, then it is sin, plain and simple.....

And I can perceive the age group of those in this thread for the most part. Now for us old *arts, we don't give a rat's hinder parts 'cause we're past that. :-D Don't worry everyone; one day you won't care either.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

sometimes i get a little carried away. its just, i know what right and wrong. and when people say whats wrong is right, i just have to make a really good point. can a defender of the truth stand in silence when that truth is attacked?

 

[ArtGuy]

“Is Masturbation a sin?†Now it is true that the Bible does not say anything explicit condemning, however; the Bible does say something about doing things to glorify God. So ask yourself, is masturbation glorifying God?

Is sipping my peppermint mocha glorifying God? The fact that a particular act doesn't glorify God doesn't make it sinful.

And the deluge of posting since I was last here is too much to respond to individually, so I will splorch out a few isolated points:

- What the Catholic Church says, while interesting, is not exactly definitive unless you happen to be Catholic. Recall that the official Catholic position was one of geocentrism until, what, a decade ago?

- I find it interesting that I was chastized for comparing masturbation to a bubble bath by the same guy who compared it to murdering fetuses.

- The idea that a man or woman who is fundamentally incapable of having children can still have sex with a spouse on the grounds that procreation is still possible is absurd. If a woman has had her plumbing completely removed, for example, a baby is simply not going to happen. Period. Unless, of course, the doctors missed and removed her kindey, or something. But that's beside the point, because in such a case the primary function of sex is undeniably one of sheer physical (and emotional) pleasure. Baby-making is nowhere in the picture at all. Further, if the odds, however minute, of the act producing a baby is what makes sex acceptable, then masturbation can be argued for. I mean, there's a slim possibility that a stray sperm cell will somehow survive in the open and will find itself in some woman's uterus. Sure, it's a billion to one, but it's at least as good as a woman without a uterus or any eggs giving birth.

 

[CatholicXian]

It's hard to tell what may (or may not) have been addressed to me, nonetheless I am still responding...

- What the Catholic Church says, while interesting, is not exactly definitive unless you happen to be Catholic. Recall that the official Catholic position was one of geocentrism until, what, a decade ago?

Not quite. But this is beside the point.. geocentricism has nothing to do with sexuality.
My only problem is the use of the word "definitive"... Catholic Truth is Truth, regardless if a person is Catholic or not. Truth is not arbitrary and relative. We may disagree on truths, and that's one thing, but "definitively" what the Catholic Church defines as Truth, is Truth, regardless of religious affiliations. (you are free to disagree, however)

- I find it interesting that I was chastized for comparing masturbation to a bubble bath by the same guy who compared it to murdering fetuses.

Is this to me? If so... first things first. I'm a woman, not a guy. ;-)
Secondly, masturbation is not merely a physical act of pleasure. It is, by nature, a sexual act--whereas, a bubble bath is not per se a physical act nor is it per se, a sexual act. (however, this is also where I'm confused, as I don't recall relating masturbation to abortion... so perhaps this is not addressed to me)

- The idea that a man or woman who is fundamentally incapable of having children can still have sex with a spouse on the grounds that procreation is still possible is absurd. If a woman has had her plumbing completely removed, for example, a baby is simply not going to happen. Period. Unless, of course, the doctors missed and removed her kindey, or something. But that's beside the point, because in such a case the primary function of sex is undeniably one of sheer physical (and emotional) pleasure. Baby-making is nowhere in the picture at all. Further, if the odds, however minute, of the act producing a baby is what makes sex acceptable, then masturbation can be argued for. I mean, there's a slim possibility that a stray sperm cell will somehow survive in the open and will find itself in some woman's uterus. Sure, it's a billion to one, but it's at least as good as a woman without a uterus or any eggs giving birth.

No, no, no... go back and actually read my post. I made several very important distinctions which you are overlooking: sins, control, intention, nature, etc.

Furthermore, the primary function of sex is not, and cannot be "undeniably" one of sheer physical/emotional pleasure. Sex, by nature, is meant to produce life. Sex has, first and foremost, two ends which are entirely inseparable: procreation and the unity of the spouses. You cannot separate one from the other without disrupting the conjugal act in some manner or another.

 

[ArtGuy]

Not quite. But this is beside the point.. geocentricism has nothing to do with sexuality.
My only problem is the use of the word "definitive"... Catholic Truth is Truth, regardless if a person is Catholic or not. Truth is not arbitrary and relative. We may disagree on truths, and that's one thing, but "definitively" what the Catholic Church defines as Truth, is Truth, regardless of religious affiliations. (you are free to disagree, however)

I'm not sure how to interpret this. If by "Truth" you mean "official Catholic doctrine", then yes. What the Church says is official doctrine by definition. If by "Truth" you mean "something that is unequivocably correct", then I hope you can see how a non-Catholic would not buy that, just as a non-Muslim would not accept the Koran as "Truth".

Is this to me? If so... first things first. I'm a woman, not a guy. ;-)
Secondly, masturbation is not merely a physical act of pleasure. It is, by nature, a sexual act--whereas, a bubble bath is not per se a physical act nor is it per se, a sexual act. (however, this is also where I'm confused, as I don't recall relating masturbation to abortion... so perhaps this is not addressed to me)

Sorry, I had you mixed up with someone else. Also, sorry for confusing your sex.

Anyway, I accept that masturbation is a sexual act. What I disagree with is that the Bible unequivocably states that the only sexual act that is permissible is intercourse between spouses. On the tame end of things, we have kissing. Kissing, between lovers, is a sexual act. It's meant to arouse. Is it a sin for non-married people to kiss? I'm not even talking hardcore make-out sessions, I mean moderately chaste, no-tongue-involved kissing.

No, no, no... go back and actually read my post. I made several very important distinctions which you are overlooking: sins, control, intention, nature, etc.

Furthermore, the primary function of sex is not, and cannot be "undeniably" one of sheer physical/emotional pleasure. Sex, by nature, is meant to produce life. Sex has, first and foremost, two ends which are entirely inseparable: procreation and the unity of the spouses. You cannot separate one from the other without disrupting the conjugal act in some manner or another.

The two ends of sex are separable, though, by virtue of the fact that one can be completely incapable of producing children. There are certain people for whom reproduction is a biological impossibility. And the only way to get around this is to blithely imply that hey, miracles happen. I think this is justification after the fact to get away from the idea that the Catholic Church, at one time, considered the very enjoyment of sex to be sinful. And it works, provided you don't think too hard about it. But on its merits, it's a pretty specious argument.

 

[CatholicXian]

I'm not sure how to interpret this. If by "Truth" you mean "official Catholic doctrine", then yes. What the Church says is official doctrine by definition. If by "Truth" you mean "something that is unequivocably correct", then I hope you can see how a non-Catholic would not buy that, just as a non-Muslim would not accept the Koran as "Truth".

As I said, you are free to disagree. However, Truth is truth... what is true, must be true.

There may be bits of 'truth' in the Koran--they worship one God, the God of Abraham, which is a good thing they have going for them... they have just been deceived by Mohammed who led them astray. I do see the point you were trying to make however, which why I noted that you were free to disagree... however I could not stand here as Catholic and profess something I believe in faith to be false, or not universally true.

Sorry, I had you mixed up with someone else. Also, sorry for confusing your sex.

Quite alright... it happens a lot.

Anyway, I accept that masturbation is a sexual act. What I disagree with is that the Bible unequivocably states that the only sexual act that is permissible is intercourse between spouses. On the tame end of things, we have kissing. Kissing, between lovers, is a sexual act. It's meant to arouse. Is it a sin for non-married people to kiss? I'm not even talking hardcore make-out sessions, I mean moderately chaste, no-tongue-involved kissing.

Erm, I'm going to have to disagree again. You kiss your parents don't you (or didn't you when you were a child)? That's not a sexual act. Kissing, especially "back in the day" was a sign of peace, a greeting.

Today it holds a more exclusive meaning, I'll give you that. However, a certain degree of affection and devotion is to be expected from lovers. However, there are limits to arousal. Modest, chaste, limited kissing can be okay-- I say 'can be' because if it becomes a means of temptation and causes too much arousal, than it ought to be avoided. The point though, is that lovers ought not do things which would make their love a lie--or cause the other to sin (for this is not real love). Sex outside of marriage is a lie because it unites two people as "one flesh" when they are not truly sharing their lives by living in a covenantal relationship. Arousing the other to the point of sexual temptation can lead to sin and so should be avoided...

Anyway, I'm rambling... sexual morality can seem like a tricky mess... However, the point is to remain focused on God, and focused on love. Getting to know the other as a person unto themselves before uniting yourself to them in the ultimate self-gift and reception of the other.

The two ends of sex are separable, though, by virtue of the fact that one can be completely incapable of producing children. There are certain people for whom reproduction is a biological impossibility. And the only way to get around this is to blithely imply that hey, miracles happen. I think this is justification after the fact to get away from the idea that the Catholic Church, at one time, considered the very enjoyment of sex to be sinful. And it works, provided you don't think too hard about it. But on its merits, it's a pretty specious argument.

They are only separable in theory. People who are infertile (whether intentionally (which is a sin) or unintentionally (this is UNnatural but beyond their control)) are not the norm. It is unnatural.

The Catholic Church has never considered the enjoyment of sex to be sinful when expressed as the unitive love between spouses. Enjoyment of sex outside the marriage covenant is sinful, however. (and this is truly what masturbation is and seeks...)

Sex is not merely another intimate gesture of love and affection. It is THE ultimate and most intimate expression of love between a husband and a wife. It is the only means by which children can come to be (this is why scientific IVF, etc. is sinful... children deserve to be the fruit of love, not the product of science or labs). Sex says to the other that you love them so much you want others like them to come to be... self-gift so utterly total that the love between them can take on concrete existence in the form of a child. Sex is, by nature, meant and intended to be fruitful (/fertile). Sterility, intended (sinful) or unintended (not sinful) is UNnatural--it's not the way that sex was intended to be. Couples who find themselves in the instance of unintentional sterility cannot be held accountable--for it was beyond their control... and in uniting themselves in the conjugal act they are doing nothing that violates the nature of the act itself.

Thus it is sinful to remove either end from the conjugal act, procreation by any means of contraception, or the pleasure and unity of the spouses by having sex outside of marriage or by some travesty such as rape, etc.

In sum, then, masturbation is sinful because it is a sexual act apart from the conjugal act of love between the spouses, it is selfish (and wholly excludes the other)... it is a sexual act of self-pleasure. And that, is precisely why is violates sexual morality. Sex is selfless, not selfish. Self-giving (and receiving the other)...

 

[reznwerks]

Masterbating? Is it a sin? Is it as sinful as premarital sex? My little cousin, who's 17, recently asked me these questions and I honestly didn't know what to tell her. She's not sexually active but she has questions. And I'd rather she'd ask and get honest answers then to just be a teen and do it anyway. . .

It might be a sin if you are a Christian but if you're not it might protect you from prostate cancer.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3942

 

[ArtGuy]

CatholicXian -

Well, we've now established that doing something purely for your own pleasure is not necessarily a sin, and we've established that something can be a sexual act and not necessarily a sin. Given these two axioms, I think a reasonable argument could be made either way. I agree that if you hold to Catholic dogma, then masturbation is probably sinful. For non-Catholics, though, I don't think a sound argument can be made without just trotting out tautology. (It's sinful because it's sexually immoral! Why is it sexually immoral? Because it's a sin!)

Regardless, I think us continuing this discussion would be about as fruitful as a Muslim and Christian debating the true nature of God. I submit that we agree to respectfully disagree.

 

[LCOF]

What seems to be lost in this discussion is lying is a sin, yet people lie as frequently, if more frequently then they masterbate. My understanding is God makes no distinction with sin. Sin is sin. We as humans assign degrees of small sin, to large sins.

As a Christian we are sinners. And just because we are saved, does not mean we will no longer sin. I would speculate those who protest the loudest, about masterbation, even masterbate. Masterbation if done is a personal thing, and it is who is the final arbiter.

Frankly, I would much rather have people masterbate, early and often to relieve their urges, than to rape, or molest. Had son priest practiced more self gratification then, we would have less pedophile priests. That said, we are now finding many women school teachers should practice masterbation as well.

Thus in God's eyes, masterbation may be as bad as child molestation. It is us who see it differently. Therefore, don't be so "hard on" those who masterbate.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Frankly, I would much rather have people masterbate, early and often to relieve their urges, than to rape, or molest. Had son priest practiced more self gratification then, we would have less pedophile priests. That said, we are now finding many women school teachers should practice masterbation as well.

Wow... just wow...

Cause, yknow, masterbation and pedophilia are totally the same thing...

No. Pedophilia and masterbation are mutually exclusive points. You should check out my post from earlier in this thread when I talked about masterbation and sexual addiction. But pedophilia is a totally unrelated mental illness. yes, both are sexual, but they are unrelated.

Thus in God's eyes, masterbation may be as bad as child molestation. It is us who see it differently. Therefore, don't be so "hard on" those who masterbate.

To quote Bendedict XVI "The truth is not decided by a majority vote." In God's eyes, if masterbation is as bad as child molestation, then us seeing it differently doesnt matter. God is truth. He is THE truth and the measure by which all are measured. Just because our culture is in the throws of moral relativism doesnt mean that actions performed are any less wrong. And if you have knowledge as to the gravity of the sin, then you have a responsibility to act accordingly. Secondly, I dont believe masterbation is as bad as child molestation because it doesnt destroy anyone other than the person commiting it, however, it affects other areas. One cannot sin and have that sin remain isolated to that area of life. Sin affects the whole soul, and therefore the whole person and any areas that that soul is a part of. Whether you feel that masturbation is a sin or not, objectively it is wrong and upsets God's natural order. Thats what we are talking about. That it is wrong, and why. We also call on those who do this to change their lifestyle and ask God to change hearts.

 

[jsprouse]

This topic seems about as controversial as a Christian getting a tattoo...

 

[LCOF]

Hey beloved, it sounds like you would want to procescute a person for lust, as viciously as you may want to prosecute them for rape. Something tells me, a woman would prefer a potential rapist would, masterbate, instead of fulfilling their fantasy in a real live assault. Especially, if they never knew about the thoughts. Just my opinion,

 

[ArtGuy]

This topic seems about as controversial as a Christian getting a tattoo...

Or getting an ear pierced. I find it amusing that a lot of people ignore the extremely blatant forbidding of piercings, but have to dig around assorted scripture to justify a supposed forbidding of masturbation.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

From a legal standpoint, lust is one thing. Its a desire, not an action. From a Christian standpoint, lust is a deadly sin. The problem with masterbation and lust is that your body doesnt forget the feeling. You may think that just because a person masterbates, they may be able to get their sexual frustrations out instead of raping someone.

I have a couple of points to bring up.
1. A person should be a master of their passions. That is a christian calling. A person who masterbates in order to avoid raping someone, I have to wonder about whether they are trying to master their passions, or consenting to them little by little.. Theologically, what is a small sin supposed to do. Lead you to a bigger sin. If a person masterbates to the image of an assault in their mind... there are bigger issues than masterbation at hand.

2. Im not talking lesser of two evils here. What Im saying is that masturbation is wrong. It upsets the natural order. Now, I believe it is less wrong than rape, but we're talking shades here. Consenting to your body and masterbating is simply consenting to your passions. Eventually, a bigger passion will come along. If you read CS Lewis, the screwtape letters, he suggests that people fall into the sin, and eventually the pleasure leaves it and their stuck doing it trying to regain the original pleasure, which doesnt return. But our argument does not lie in sense perception.

3. Masterbation can lead to sexual addiction. That will lead to the person possibly raping someone, and definately lead to the person using people for pleasure. I once dated a girl who had a sexual addiction. I didnt know this. She would sleep with my "friends" because I wouldnt sleep with her. She told herself that each time would be the last. And it wasnt. Her story is typical of people with the addiction. Your supposed to avoid the occasion of sin (a situation that has strong potential to lead to sin). Masturbation is a sin, it leads to greater sins and is therefore an occasion for them.

So, its still wrong. And its connected with the greater sins like rape and extra-marital sex.