100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is masturbation a "sin"? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Does someone not fantasize of someone else while masturbating? Maybe not someone in particular, but just generally someone? Yes, weather it's during the process of masturbation and or before which got the masturbated started. Well with this established i'll show why it's a sin to masturbate. Matthew 5:28 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Well, that's your interpretation. I don't see it that way at all. When a person fantasizes this is precisely what they are doing, "having a fantasy". Thus they aren't 'lusting' after anyone in particular. The person they are imagining to be with is 'imagined', even if if they are HOPING that the person they are imagining might be like an actual person, chances are they could be dead wrong anyway. 
So I don't see the verse you quoted as being applicable to masturbation at all. If taken literally it's speaking about lusting after a women that you're actually LOOKING at. That's what it says. It doesn't say anything about imagining things when no one is around. Also, the attraction doesn't need to be based on lust, it could indeed be based on a sincere and honest desire to love someone, then it's not lust at all. This is why Paper Popes suck. They try to push their perverted intentions onto everyone else. 
If you notice I said "maybe not after someone in particular". But nevertheless it is fantasizing for "someone". Again, maybe not someone in particular. But you can not tell me while someone is sitting their beat'n it, they are thinking of just that. That they are sitting their beat'n themselves. No, they are "fantasizing" after someone, or "lusting" after someone. And again maybe not someone in general, but still nevertheless SOMEONE. So what if that "someone" is the person's spouse? Would still be lusting. A definition of lust - Lust is a craving for sexual intimacy, sometimes to the point of assuming a self-indulgent character. Lust, or a desire for the flesh of another, is considered a sin in the three major Abrahamic religions when indulged outside of marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does someone not fantasize of someone else while masturbating? Maybe not someone in particular, but just generally someone? Yes, weather it's during the process of masturbation and or before which got the masturbated started. Well with this established i'll show why it's a sin to masturbate. Matthew 5:28 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Well, that's your interpretation. I don't see it that way at all. When a person fantasizes this is precisely what they are doing, "having a fantasy". Thus they aren't 'lusting' after anyone in particular. The person they are imagining to be with is 'imagined', even if if they are HOPING that the person they are imagining might be like an actual person, chances are they could be dead wrong anyway.
So I don't see the verse you quoted as being applicable to masturbation at all. If taken literally it's speaking about lusting after a women that you're actually LOOKING at. That's what it says. It doesn't say anything about imagining things when no one is around. Also, the attraction doesn't need to be based on lust, it could indeed be based on a sincere and honest desire to love someone, then it's not lust at all. This is why Paper Popes suck. They try to push their perverted intentions onto everyone else.
If you notice I said "maybe not after someone in particular". But nevertheless it is fantasizing for "someone". Again, maybe not someone in particular. But you can not tell me while someone is sitting their beat'n it, they are thinking of just that. That they are sitting their beat'n themselves. No, they are "fantasizing" after someone, or "lusting" after someone. And again maybe not someone in general, but still nevertheless SOMEONE. So what if that "someone" is the person's spouse? Would still be lusting. A definition of lust - Lust is a craving for sexual intimacy, sometimes to the point of assuming a self-indulgent character. Lust, or a desire for the flesh of another, is considered a sin in the three major Abrahamic religions when indulged outside of marriage. 'lust' is the craving for ANYTHING beyond reason. It is not limited to sexual realms. One can allow 'lust' of power, gold, even spagetti to 'control' aspects of ones life. Sexual Intimacy is not a sin. If all mankind 'abstained' from sexual intimacy we would cease to exist. That would be a sin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does someone not fantasize of someone else while masturbating? Maybe not someone in particular, but just generally someone? Yes, weather it's during the process of masturbation and or before which got the masturbated started. Well with this established i'll show why it's a sin to masturbate. Matthew 5:28 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Well, that's your interpretation. I don't see it that way at all. When a person fantasizes this is precisely what they are doing, "having a fantasy". Thus they aren't 'lusting' after anyone in particular. The person they are imagining to be with is 'imagined', even if if they are HOPING that the person they are imagining might be like an actual person, chances are they could be dead wrong anyway.
So I don't see the verse you quoted as being applicable to masturbation at all. If taken literally it's speaking about lusting after a women that you're actually LOOKING at. That's what it says. It doesn't say anything about imagining things when no one is around. Also, the attraction doesn't need to be based on lust, it could indeed be based on a sincere and honest desire to love someone, then it's not lust at all. This is why Paper Popes suck. They try to push their perverted intentions onto everyone else.
If you notice I said "maybe not after someone in particular". But nevertheless it is fantasizing for "someone". Again, maybe not someone in particular. But you can not tell me while someone is sitting their beat'n it, they are thinking of just that. That they are sitting their beat'n themselves. No, they are "fantasizing" after someone, or "lusting" after someone. And again maybe not someone in general, but still nevertheless SOMEONE. So what if that "someone" is the person's spouse? Would still be lusting. A definition of lust - Lust is a craving for sexual intimacy, sometimes to the point of assuming a self-indulgent character. Lust, or a desire for the flesh of another, is considered a sin in the three major Abrahamic religions when indulged outside of marriage. 'lust' is the craving for ANYTHING beyond reason. It is not limited to sexual realms. One can allow 'lust' of power, gold, even spagetti to 'control' aspects of ones life. Sexual Intimacy is not a sin. If all mankind 'abstained' from sexual intimacy we would cease to exist. That would be a sin. And "sex" isn't a sin. It isn't a sin with your married wife. And no lust is not limited to sexual realms, just that is where the conversation was at. Sex is for procreation, for making a family with your married spouse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole idea that a God would create people to be sexually attracted to each other and then make is a sin to act on that natural drive is truly insane.
In fact, this whole issue gives the Atheists a strong upper hand. If the Bible were true there would have been no need for there to be any sexual desires at all. None whatsoever. The reason being that when God created man, man could already talk. Man could already understand God when God spoke with him. Therefore God could have simply explained to man how procreation works and man could have continued to procreate based on that knowledge alone. ONLY evolution would actually REQUIRE a natural sex drive like animals have in order to facilitate procreation. The very obvious FACT that humans are naturally driven to become sexually arouse when near a potential mating partner basically PROVES beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no God who created man in a way like the Bible describes. Because sexual drive as it exists in humans simply wouldn't be required in that scenario. Why? Because men would have NEVER been like animals! They would have always had intellectual capacity and there would have been no need for a strong sex drive. So the Biblical myth is once again shown to be utterly absurd. For a God to have actually created mankind with the same kind of instinctual sex drive that animals have and then tell him not to act on it would have been an act of sadism. So unless people want to believe God is a sadist, then toss the Bible on the mythology shelf and give it up. If there is any truth to spirituality it must include the FACT that we evolved from lower animals as science has already shown to be TRUE. The Bible is once again caught red-handed in a lie by telling us that mankind was created with a full intellectual capacity. That can't be true, otherwise there would have been no need for God to have instilled man with the same animalistic sex drive as the lower animals have. So chalk one up for the atheists here. And keep in mind that the pantheists are still in the running too since their spiritual creation myth is still valid in light of this insight too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole idea that a God would create people to be sexually attracted to each other and then make is a sin to act on that natural drive is truly insane. In fact, this whole issue gives the Atheists a strong upper hand. If the Bible were true there would have been no need for there to be any sexual desires at all. None whatsoever. The reason being that when God created man, man could already talk. Man could already understand God when God spoke with him. Therefore God could have simply explained to man how procreation works and man could have continued to procreate based on that knowledge alone. ONLY evolution would actually REQUIRE a natural sex drive like animals have in order to facilitate procreation. The very obvious FACT that humans are naturally driven to become sexually arouse when near a potential mating partner basically PROVES beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no God who created man in a way like the Bible describes. Because sexual drive as it exists in humans simply wouldn't be required in that scenario. Why? Because men would have NEVER been like animals! They would have always had intellectual capacity and there would have been no need for a strong sex drive. So the Biblical myth is once again shown to be utterly absurd. For a God to have actually created mankind with the same kind of instinctual sex drive that animals have and then tell him not to act on it would have been an act of sadism. So unless people want to believe God is a sadist, then toss the Bible on the mythology shelf and give it up. If there is any truth to spirituality it must include the FACT that we evolved from lower animals as science has already shown to be TRUE. The Bible is once again caught red-handed in a lie by telling us that mankind was created with a full intellectual capacity. That can't be true, otherwise there would have been no need for God to have instilled man with the same animalistic sex drive as the lower animals have. So chalk one up for the atheists here. And keep in mind that the pantheists are still in the running too since their spiritual creation myth is still valid in light of this insight too. =============================== The whole idea that a God would create people to be sexually attracted to each other and then make is a sin to act on that natural drive is truly insane. ============================== It all boils down to you not at pointing fingers are our father. It's about how you are taking what you see. Take for instance older statues, Greek statues for instance, alot were nude. Was not pornographic or anything of such, it was seen as beautiful not lustful. And if we were not attracted to one another, we wouldn't populate, or at least not as much and would then take longer to fill the earth as we were commanded to do. --------------------------------------- ============================== Why? Because men would have NEVER been like animals! They would have always had intellectual capacity and there would have been no need for a strong sex drive. ============================== Again, it all boils down to how you take things such as nudity and or the female body. And without a strong sexual drive we would not multiply. A lot of people would remain abstinent. And sexual drive isn't about reproducing any ways. For if that was the case, why would people whom can not have children have the sexual drive? A sexual drive is purely a physical/fleshly desire. Again, it boils down to how you control that desire. ------------------------------------------ =============================== If there is any truth to spirituality it must include the FACT that we evolved from lower animals as science has already shown to be TRUE. =============================== No, my friend it has not be proven as TRUE. That is why it is called the THEORY of evolution. Theory my friend, not 100% factual, but theoretically. ------------------------------------------ ================================ That can't be true, otherwise there would have been no need for God to have instilled man with the same animalistic sex drive as the lower animals have. ================================ We don't have the same animalistic sex drive as lower animals do. I know this for a fact. I can NOT be turned on by someone I have no feelings for. Emotional attachment and physical attraction go hand in hand. But then that boils down to do you do the sexual act for purely physical pleasure? Or emotional pleasure? Or just procreation? There is alot of emotions shared in the act of making love, not just merely robots doing the dirty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It all boils down to you not at pointing fingers are our father. It's about how you are taking what you see. Take for instance older statues, Greek statues for instance, alot were nude. Was not pornographic or anything of such, it was seen as beautiful not lustful. And if we were not attracted to one another, we wouldn't populate, or at least not as much and would then take longer to fill the earth as we were commanded to do. It all boils down to you not realizing the flaws in your supposed logic. First off, why would God need to make us sexually attract to one another in order to obey his COMMAND to multiply? If he were half-way intelligent he would have merely commanded people to multiple and only those who were willing to OBEY him would multiply and those who aren't interested in OBEYING him would die off. So for a God who lusts to be OBEYED he would be extremely stupid. Also, what does time have to do with it? What's the rush? I though that with God time is eternal and God has infinite patience. You make God sound like he's suffering from anxiety. He forfeits the proper way to do things in favor of causing humans to lust to procreate whether they are doing it to OBEY him or not. That makes no sense at all to me. So once again, I see nonsense. Again, it all boils down to how you take things such as nudity and or the female body. And without a strong sexual drive we would not multiply. A lot of people would remain abstinent. And sexual drive isn't about reproducing any ways. For if that was the case, why would people whom can not have children have the sexual drive? A sexual drive is purely a physical/fleshly desire. Again, it boils down to how you control that desire. Again you're missing the point. We were CREATED with such a primal animalistic desire. It's clearly present in the overwhelming masses, and has historically been recognized but all cultures as being extreme potent. Commercial industries use this primal desire in many of their commercials to sell their products. So the idea of a God putting this desire onto people just so they would OBEY his command to procreate is silly, IMHO. Especially for a God who supposedly places so much value on OBEDIENCE. No wonder he has such horrible problems with his creation that he has to drown them out because of this very mistake. If our creator was that foolish all we can truly ask is whether he's bright enough to have actually learned any lessons from this yet. =============================== If there is any truth to spirituality it must include the FACT that we evolved from lower animals as science has already shown to be TRUE. =============================== No, my friend it has not be proven as TRUE. That is why it is called the THEORY of evolution. Theory my friend, not 100% factual, but theoretically. With all due respect you don't seem to be very knowledgeable of what we know about evolution. Yes, we do have a THEORY of evolution. A THEORY EXPLAINS HOW it can occur. That's all the THEORY does. However, in addition to the THEORY we have overwhelming EVIDENCE that the THEORY is indeed correct. In other words, the THEORY tells us how evolution can WORK, and everywhere we look we see precisely the evidence and mechanism in place that provide everything required for this EXPLANATION to be true. So the theory is verified via observation. Not unlike Relativity THEORY. We still call it a "THEORY", but all of it's major predictions have been observed to be true. In other words, time truly does dilate, etc. Yet we still call this a THEORY even though it has been proven to be true. This is because THEORIES can be either TRUE or FALSE, and it doesn't matter whether they are true or false we still call them THEORIES (i.e. models that explain) Moreover, the Biblical account of a Flood could not have taken place during human evolution. The evidence is clear that no such catastrophic flood ever took place while humans inhabited Earth. So we have EVIDENCE against the Biblical fables just like we have EVIDENCE against Greek Mythology. Both of those mythologies have been clearly shown to be false. That can't be true, otherwise there would have been no need for God to have instilled man with the same animalistic sex drive as the lower animals have. ================================ We don't have the same animalistic sex drive as lower animals do. I know this for a fact. I can NOT be turned on by someone I have no feelings for. Emotional attachment and physical attraction go hand in hand. But then that boils down to do you do the sexual act for purely physical pleasure? Or emotional pleasure? Or just procreation? There is alot of emotions shared in the act of making love, not just merely robots doing the dirty. Why do you call the release of sexual tension "dirty". 
Both physicians as well as psychologists have recognized that the biological release of sexual tensions and desires is a very healthy thing. There's nothing "dirty" about it at all. The "dirtiness" comes entirely from religious perverts who pervert the natural cycles of the human animal into something sick. Even if the Bible requires that women "atone" themselves after having given birth to cleanse themselves of the spiritual "filth" of having procreated life.
You talk about "dirty". This is a God who views the very act of creating life as being a 'spiritually filthy' thing to do.
That's about as sick as religions can't get. Clearly these old fables were created themselves by sick-minded perverts and not a truly divine being. No truly divine being would be such disgusting. The Bible even has the women atoning the birth of a females child for twice as long as that of a male child. Once again we see the extreme bigotry of male-chauvinism in these fables. If the God depicted in these fables were real he would be the most disgusting and perverted demon you can imagine. Certainly not something I would care to bow down and worship. This God would need psychiatric help big time! The only thing I could do for such a "God" is to feel extreme pity for it and hope it gets well someday. How could I ever worship a God that is to petty and disgusting that all I could possible do is offer it pity. The poor thing must be in horrible psychological pain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me a bird on the hand..... 
Gives you an extra one for the bush? Hahaha!!! probably!....I just want my rainbow lorikeet back, Dan has on his hand, he can keep his rod and his staff...(can you call a matchstick a staff?)... 
The only match around here is my hairy bum and your face.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There have been songs written about it!
http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=youtube+rosie+jackson+browne |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A definition of lust - Lust is a craving for sexual intimacy, sometimes to the point of assuming a self-indulgent character. Lust, or a desire for the flesh of another, is considered a sin in the three major Abrahamic religions when indulged outside of marriage. What is the source of the above definition of lust? According to Vine's Expository Dictionary, the Greek word translated as "lust" does not specifically pertain to sexual desire. According to Vine, the word "denotes 'strong desire' of any kind, the various kinds being frequenty specified by some adjective." According to the book Word Meanings in the New Testament, the Greek word translated as "lust" primarily means "bad desire". Anyway, until you show me a Bible verse that specifically talks about masturbation, I will continue to claim that the Bible is silent on the topic of masturbation, and thus I will not claim that masturbation is a sin. |
|
|
|
|
