Masturbation- is it wrong?

[MR. Nate]

I just find it hard to believe that a god that is so loving that he allows himself to be crucified, would want a man to have blue balls and be in pain.

If a man is divorced, or even a married man who has a non existent sex life, and is expected to live the rest of his life with wet dreams, well that's just pathetic.

It seems like the concept of Christian love your promoting is a little skewed. Christ offered suffering on earth for His followers. Blue balls is pretty minor compared to torture, jeers and flogging, put in chains and put in prison. Being stoned, sawed in two, put to death by the sword being destitute, persecuted and mistreated, wandering in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

Maybe Christ allowed himself to die just so everyone can masturbate.

Christ didn't die to make us happy on earth. He actually said to expect to be attacked. He DID say that in heaven, we will be made complete in Him. It's a trade off, short term suffering for long term security.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I just find it hard to believe that a god that is so loving that he allows himself to be crucified, would want a man to have blue balls and be in pain.

In my experience, it is not painful to go without masturbating. The only time my testicles have hurt is when they got nailed with a soccer ball.

It all cums down to a matter of opinion.

That's an odd thing for a Christian to say, especially a Protestant. What the Bible says is what the Bible says. "If you love me, keep my commandments." One of those commandments was not to lust. There's no opinion about it.

[firth4eva]

if its so wrong why does it feel so right?

anyway being serious. christians used to believe that an orgasm was contact with god. the most pleasure you feel because you are with god. or something like that

[Norse]

Christianity is an evil faith, and to be fair so is islam and judaism.

You guys should seriously learn to chill the f*ck out and lighten up a bit.

I'm going for a wank.

[CrazyAnglican]

Christianity is an evil faith, and to be fair so is islam and judaism.

Judaism:

Don't murder others.
Be happy with what you have; don't covet or steal.
Keep one day set aside to take it easy every week
Don't get caught up in transitory things
Be faithful to your spouse.

Christianity:

Love one another as I have loved you (to the point of giving your life for
another should that become necessary)

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

I'm not sure about Islam, never read the Koran, but I'm sure it's equally evil and subversive

Just out of curiosity what do you consider good? I've remained quite calm by the way

[Norse]

Christianity, judeaism and islam have all been used as a means to create consensus. They have historically played upon the fears of vulnerable communities in order to bring them under the control of the religious leaders.

Christianity, which was originally (from my point of view) a foreign agenda effectively wiped out the traditions and practices of indo-european tribes.

That sounds to me as though christianity effectively stole the identity of an entire group of people. What more, the heirarchal structuring and make up effectively introduced and justified the subjugation of woman.

Religious leaders with the help of politicians in the past have effectively killed millions of young men in the name of your religion. Christianity is also a very backward religion, with archaic opinions on modern issues, not to mention the true belief that 'evoloution' and the 'big bang' is a myth.

Once I used to hold the opinion that Christianity was useful for weak people who need hope, but I really believe now that it is time to close the book on your medieval BS.

Any questions?

[CrazyAnglican]

Christianity, judeaism and islam have all been used as a means to create consensus. They have historically played upon the fears of vulnerable communities in order to bring them under the control of the religious leaders. Christianity, which was originally (from my point of view) a foreign agenda effectively wiped out the traditions and practices of indo-european tribes.

I've often wondered why Christian countries all have the same cultures and traditions; France being so similar to the Republic of Georgia.

That sounds to me as though christianity effectively stole the identity of an entire group of people. What more, the heirarchal structuring and make up effectively introduced and justified the subjugation of woman.

Again each area kept it's own culture. Please document where a specific country was made to adopt an entirely foreign identity in this manner, much less by the Christian churches. It's a lovely theory.

Religious leaders with the help of politicians in the past have effectively killed millions of young men in the name of your religion.

Really? Christians have perpetrated the deaths of so many. I suppose of course that atheistic politicians never send people off to their deaths in the name of the state or of internal security. Never heard of Josef Stalin? Pol Pot? I suppose that in this case atheism is every bit as evil. Or do we agree that evil people will use whatever is handy to perpetrate their crimes? Once again, What do you consider good?

Christianity is also a very backward religion, with archaic opinions on modern issues, not to mention the true belief that 'evoloution' and the 'big bang' is a myth.

If you'd like to know what I think about these issues ask me. Many scientists are Christians and are contributing greatly in this area. By all means, try to cast us all in the light of a small minority though. I'm sure it might work eventually.

Once I used to hold the opinion that Christianity was useful for weak people who need hope, but I really believe now that it is time to close the book on your medieval BS.

Any questions?

No, you haven't lost me yet, but I'll try to keep up.

[Norse]

I'm suprised that you are so vehemently against masturbation, you seem like a 'grade A' wanker to me.

suppose of course that atheistic politicians never send people off to their deaths in the name of the state or of internal security

So this makes religious wars ok does it? So therefore the deaths caused by atheistic politicians justify the many millions of those who perished in the crusades and other christian ventures?

Again each area kept it's own culture. Please document where a specific country was made to adopt an entirely foreign identity in this manner, much less by the Christian churches.

Of course, you do tend to see many shrines to Odin scattered around the Germanic region, and Obodorittes practising thier slavic rituals.

In fact at the moment, I'm running around in a viking helmet enacting my anticipated einherjar status in valhalla.

If you'd like to know what I think about these issues ask me. Many scientists are Christians and are contributing greatly in this area. By all means, try to cast us all in the light of a small minority though. I'm sure it might work eventually.

I'm not particularly interested in what you have to say about anything, since christians are extremely annoying and have a tendancy of twisting a logical debate into a profound, god-bothering mission statement.

Feel free to elaborate on the well documented sexism/peadophillia/embesslement that goes on within UK religious establishments.

And you say that choking the chicken is evil??

[Riao]

Christianity, judeaism and islam have all been used as a means to create consensus. They have historically played upon the fears of vulnerable communities in order to bring them under the control of the religious leaders.

Christianity, which was originally (from my point of view) a foreign agenda effectively wiped out the traditions and practices of indo-european tribes.

That sounds to me as though christianity effectively stole the identity of an entire group of people. What more, the heirarchal structuring and make up effectively introduced and justified the subjugation of woman.

Religious leaders with the help of politicians in the past have effectively killed millions of young men in the name of your religion. Christianity is also a very backward religion, with archaic opinions on modern issues, not to mention the true belief that 'evoloution' and the 'big bang' is a myth.

Once I used to hold the opinion that Christianity was useful for weak people who need hope, but I really believe now that it is time to close the book on your medieval BS.

Any questions?

Norse, most of these arguments (if not all) are based on Catholicism rather than Christianity itself. It can certainly be argued that the Catholic church caused pain and suffering on the level of the more aggressive governments in history. Christianity in itself is a faith only and does not necessitate any real organization.

Whether you fantasize about an entirely fictional person or a person you know, the object of your fantasy is entirely under your control. Regardless of what it looks like, it's a figment of your imagination because it behaves in the way your imagine it should. It appeared that most of the rest of your argument centered around a hypothetical fictional fantasy and how it would be different due to this. Fantasies are fictional so there is no difference. If you are remembering a sexual encounter then it is memory not fantasy.

I still don't think you quite understand what I was saying earlier. Of course there's a difference. I was arguing that if something does not exist then I cannot lust after that something. What does it matter if I control the fantasy? I'm only exercising my imagination without lusting after ANYONE.

I suppose of course that atheistic politicians never send people off to their deaths in the name of the state or of internal security. Never heard of Josef Stalin? Pol Pot?

I didn't realize that they were atheists. In any case they did not kill anyone in the name of atheism. It was for other reasons, which you stated yourself. The point is moot. The Catholics killed because people did not believe what they wanted them to believe.

[hecter]

I don't think that ANY religion (or lack thereof) is inherently evil, but the people that drive are. Atheism is not evil (I am an atheist and I have my own moral values and comprehension of good and evil) though Stalin was. I would give my life to save another, I would not kill unless they were trying to kill me, ect. ect. as a life is important, and murder is a horrendous thing. Masturbation and lust, on the other hand, are perfectly fine (unless of course it becomes a driving force in you're life and you are completely obsessed with it, which is always bad) as they do not hurt anybody. I lust and I do not regret it one bit. I would never let that lust take over, as my morals and sense of what is right and what is wrong would not allow me to do that. But, as I stated before, lust if perfectly fine in my book. Does that make me evil? I am an atheist, just like Stalin was. Stalin was a horrible dictator and responsible for the deaths of thousands. I lust. We both share the same religion (that is, lack of one), so does that make us equal in our evilness? There are hundreds of atheists that do good things. There are hundreds that do bad. If there were more of us, there would of course be thousands... But, there are thousands of Christians that do good, and thousands that do bad. There are thousands of Jews that do good, and thousands that do bad. There are thousands of Muslims that do good, and thousands that do bad. ect. ect. Of course, there are some more... notable evil doers in each religion. Stalin, of course, stands out. The crusades, stand out. 9/11 stands out. Do these bad things make the entire religion a bad thing? No, they don't. Why should the religion be condemned for the actions of a few notable instances? It just doesn't seem right to me. Accusing each other of inherently being evil (or your religion being evil) just creates chaos and anger and, eventually, more of these "notable instances".

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to be quite so long...

[OnlyAmbrose]

Chalk up another thread derailed by the epic battle between atheism and Christianity

[Stopper]

Again each area kept it's own culture. Please document where a specific country was made to adopt an entirely foreign identity in this manner, much less by the Christian churches.

Of course, you do tend to see many shrines to Odin scattered around the Germanic region, and Obodorittes practising thier slavic rituals.

This is irrelevant to both sides, surely?

No, each area didn't keep its own culture intact. Christianity overwhelmed every religion going. But that's the whole point of Christianity, anyway.

On the other hand, it hardly matters to an atheist if one religion displaces another.

Exactly where is the conflict here?

[CrazyAnglican]

We may as well move this over to the "Continuation of Christianity Debate" Thread where is belong Norse. Your thesis, I believe, was that Christianity is an evil faith. You can't support that statement, but I'm certainly interested in seeing you try

[Norse]

We may as well move this over to the "Continuation of Christianity Debate" Thread where is belong Norse. Your thesis, I believe, was that Christianity is an evil faith. You can't support that statement, but I'm certainly interested in seeing you try

I will not only support it, back it up and hammer the point home, but I will then have you running to the hills crucifix in one hand, bible in the other.

Then I will masturbate, frequently whilst thinking about jesus.

[Dancing Mustard]

*Fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap*

[CrazyAnglican]

We may as well move this over to the "Continuation of Christianity Debate" Thread where is belong Norse. Your thesis, I believe, was that Christianity is an evil faith. You can't support that statement, but I'm certainly interested in seeing you try

I will not only support it, back it up and hammer the point home, but I will then have you running to the hills crucifix in one hand, bible in the other.

Then I will masturbate, frequently whilst thinking about jesus.

Well sir,

Then it's on. Here's the link.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &start=165

[Knight of Orient]

ok, lets go thru this again: sinning against your body is bad

[OnlyAmbrose]

Knight! Where've you been?!

[Dancing Mustard]

ok, lets go thru this again: sinning against your body is bad

Am I sinning right now?

[Hitman079]

if its so wrong why does it feel so right?

anyway being serious. christians used to believe that an orgasm was contact with god. the most pleasure you feel because you are with god. or something like that

that was from the Da Vinci Code, which is a load of bollocks!

[MeDeFe]

Then we need an exact definition of "to sin", in order to ascertain whether masturbation is a sin or not.

[MR. Nate]

1. transgression of divine law 2. any act regarded as such transgression, esp. deliberate violation of of some religious or moral principle 3. any reprehensible action 4. to commit a sinful act 5. to offend against a principle

Is “any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God” , in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission .

[MeDeFe]

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.

[griffin_slayer]

whoever said yes is gay

exactly

[Hitman079]

whoever said yes is gay

exactly

i said yes, and i'm heterosexual.