Moderator: Community Team
hecter wrote:Well, now we're in a bit of a different argument, and that is:
Does a figment of your imagination qualify as an object?
I say it does, you say it doesn't.
Riao wrote:All right then; here's one for you:
It seems that as far as the morality of the bible goes, everyone here seems to think that it's not the act of masturbation that is the sin, but the lustful thoughts that accompany it, right?
Then is it ok, biblically concerned, to masturbate while thinking about a woman you've invented in your own mind? In that way you're not actually lusting after anyone.
Even if you never harm another person, what may come of a habit of thinking that others are merely there for your pleasure? Are you likely to be tolerant, forgiving, or truly loving toward them?
Voyeurism, lechery, adultery, rape, necrophilia, and even at the most extreme serial murder are all on the same continuum.
Riao wrote:Actually, even if the person was real, I would never end up thinking that this person was there simply for my own pleasure. That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
CrazyAnglican wrote:Chances are you aren't thinking "Man I'd really like to raise a family with her. I wonder what her career goals are and if she wants kids".
CrazyAnglican wrote:Lust is not about what the object wants. Love is about what the object wants.
hecter wrote:CrazyAnglican wrote:Chances are you aren't thinking "Man I'd really like to raise a family with her. I wonder what her career goals are and if she wants kids".
Not at that moment, no. But I don't imagine you're thinking about your career goals while you have sex either.CrazyAnglican wrote:Lust is not about what the object wants. Love is about what the object wants.
Can't you have both? I don't want to get into any details, but maybe you fantasize about what you BOTH want. Maybe your girlfriend WANTED to give you those naked pictures of her so that you could "enjoy" yourself. Maybe you're thinking of a past sexual experience with your husband that you both enjoyed.
hecter wrote:CrazyAnglican wrote:Lust is not about what the object wants. Love is about what the object wants.
Can't you have both? I don't want to get into any details, but maybe you fantasize about what you BOTH want. Maybe your girlfriend WANTED to give you those naked pictures of her so that you could "enjoy" yourself. Maybe you're thinking of a past sexual experience with your husband that you both enjoyed.
MR. Nate wrote: Matthew 5:27&28. Supporting verses about lust in general: Galatians 5:16, James 1:14&15, 1 John 2:16
Beastly wrote:Maybe matthew 5 is trying to show that women are more than mere sexual objects....
Beastly wrote:I have a man friend who is in his 70's and he loves me, not romantically but loves me as a person. He treats me like a boyfriend would treat a girlfriend, He knows that I am happily married, but he loves me as a women with no lust in his heart.
Jesus being of a perfect nature I believe saw women this way.
Beastly wrote:Then the evil desire, when it has conceived, gives birth to sin, and sin, when it is fully matured, brings forth death.
So you can masturbate to death?
Beastly wrote:You still did not show me where Jesus commanded anything... you just put question marks!
Beastly wrote:and what if someone loves Jesus so much that they masturbate thinking of being with him in heaven?
Beastly wrote:So its not the act of masturbation that is the sin... Its the thoughts while doing so...
Beastly wrote:I am not a man, so i don't know if its possible to choke the chicken without lusting...
Beastly wrote:by what i see, just looking at a woman without masturbating is just as bad
Beastly wrote:I don't know if men can masturbate without lusting or not?
Riao wrote: I'm not talking about imagining anyone I know or have seen. I'm talking about inventing someone purely in my imagination in the same way a fictional writer invents someone in their stories. Body, face, eyes, hair, skin, clothing (or the lack thereof) -- everything. I'm not talking about inventing a personality and then "skinning" that personality in the body of someone I know or have seen.
CrazyAnglican wrote:Voyeurism, lechery, adultery, rape, necrophilia, and even at the most extreme serial murder are all on the same continuum.
Riao wrote:To say that masturbation leads to these things is crazy.
hecter wrote:MeDeFe wrote:I have an off-topic question: When did hecter become a debater?
I've always enjoyed a bit of discussion on such things, I just kinda stopped for a while as none of them interested me.
b.k. barunt wrote:Snorri's like one of those fufu dogs who get all excited and dance around pissing on themself.
suggs wrote:scared off by all the pervs and wankers already? No? Then let me introduce myself, I'm Mr Pervy Wank.
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.Beastly wrote: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.
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.Beastly wrote:Maybe Christ allowed himself to die just so everyone can masturbate.
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?
Beastly wrote: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.
Beastly wrote:It all cums down to a matter of opinion.
b.k. barunt wrote:Snorri's like one of those fufu dogs who get all excited and dance around pissing on themself.
suggs wrote:scared off by all the pervs and wankers already? No? Then let me introduce myself, I'm Mr Pervy Wank.
Norse wrote:Christianity is an evil faith, and to be fair so is islam and judaism.
b.k. barunt wrote:Snorri's like one of those fufu dogs who get all excited and dance around pissing on themself.
suggs wrote:scared off by all the pervs and wankers already? No? Then let me introduce myself, I'm Mr Pervy Wank.
Norse wrote: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.
Norse wrote: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.
Norse wrote:Religious leaders with the help of politicians in the past have effectively killed millions of young men in the name of your religion.
Norse wrote: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.
Norse wrote: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?
suppose of course that atheistic politicians never send people off to their deaths in the name of the state or of internal security
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.
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.
b.k. barunt wrote:Snorri's like one of those fufu dogs who get all excited and dance around pissing on themself.
suggs wrote:scared off by all the pervs and wankers already? No? Then let me introduce myself, I'm Mr Pervy Wank.
Norse wrote: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 wrote: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 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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users