by MeDeFe on Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:54 pm
Thank you Nate.
I think we can leave out the 4th definition in Webster's, though, it uses the concept of sin to define sin, which, frankly, will not do for our purposes.
So... 2 main points in Webster's, firstly, transgression of divine law and any act that transgresses divine law.
Secondly, any "reprehensible action" or action that offends against a principle, especially religious or moral principles.
The first leads to the question what "divine law" is and how one is supposed to recognize it when one sees it. I feel that this might turn into a VERY long and heated discussion that will only lead to all participants throwing up their hands in disgust and walking away from it all.
The second might be somewhat easier to work with, though it might take a few preliminary studies to find out whether masturbation is thought to be reprehensible by a majority of a yet to be determined group of people, and if they think it offends their moral or religious principles.
The Easton Bible Dictionary picks up the first definition in Webster's but elaborates in so far as it includes ways in which sin can be commited. However, it also contains the "law of god" as a premise. And as I said, I fear that such a discussion will only lead to unnecessary hostility. Maybe a second thread is in order to separate the discussion into two.
If we want to avoid polling and evaluating a sufficiently large group of people we could take the results from this thread as a basis to start from. Out of 113 answers so far 23 say that masturbation is wrong and 90 say that it is not. Of course, ethics and esthetics by majority usually lead to results that noone is content with. But since we lack a better basis to start from we might as well start here.
Now, the new initial point, thanks to KoO, is "sinning against your [own] body is bad". Based on the 2nd point I would have to say that it to me seems very hard and at the same time very easy to sin against ones own body. On the one hand, how can something that is not a crime and which a person does in private offend anyone else? And furthermore, I doubt any sane person would do anything to him- or herself that offends his or her own principles to the degree that it can be said to be more than a nuisance.
On the other hand, we're also talking about religious principles, and religious principles have a way of being applied to more or less everything, whether people like it or not, whether they agree with them or not. But, we still don't know whether the people who agree with these principles actually are offended by the fact that others do not act in accordance with them. At least as long as they don't flaunt it. If they do it becomes an other matter, because flaunting it is an act of provocation MEANT to, at the very least, severely irritate those who see a certain action as a sin.
So... morally very hard to sin against ones own body, religiously very easy when judged from those peoples point of view who agree with certain principles that the "perpetrator" might not agree with or which might even be completely umknown to him or her, I think that sums it up pretty well.
If anyone wants to go into the matter of transgressing divine law, please create another thread for it, because the two discussions deriving from different definitions are really not compatible I think.
.jpg)
