Is masturbation sinful?

[afton]

Many people have debated about this, but I have not found any conclusive
answer yet. Is masturbation sinful?

[Acrazia]

Many people have debated about this, but I have not found any conclusive
answer yet. Is masturbation sinful?

Nope. If it was, then you wouldn't have been given the ability to do so. Have fun.

[cnorman18]

Many people have debated about this, but I have not found any conclusive
answer yet. Is masturbation sinful?

Nope. If it was, then you wouldn't have been given the ability to do so. Have fun.

Don't think I follow your reasoning here. I have also been given the ability to blow my brains out.

Or yours.

Does that mean it's OK?

[Acrazia]

Many people have debated about this, but I have not found any conclusive
answer yet. Is masturbation sinful?

Nope. If it was, then you wouldn't have been given the ability to do so. Have fun.

Don't think I follow your reasoning here. I have also been given the ability to blow my brains out.

Or yours.

Does that mean it's OK?

Perfectly so, unfortunately. Some people can't tell the difference between something that harms others and something that does. My point is, if it were so easy to do, your god would not have made it an option, so it is not sinful, so there is no sin (because you can do anything you want to), so your Bible is a complete piece of fiction, so your entire religion has no foundation. Congratulations!

[Jester]

Perfectly so, unfortunately. Some people can't tell the difference between something that harms others and something that does. My point is, if it were so easy to do, your god would not have made it an option, so it is not sinful, so there is no sin (because you can do anything you want to), so your Bible is a complete piece of fiction, so your entire religion has no foundation. Congratulations!

This is formally referred to as a slippery-slope fallacy. That is: there are several logically unconnected steps here. So reviewing your points...

Point 1: That some people (presumably the authors of the Bible) don't understand consequence correctly.
While it may be true that some cannot tell the difference between that which harms others and one's self, we shouldn't assume off-handedly that we know the difference. Some forms of damage are quite subtle, and we can't discredit spiritual damage to one's self as a possibility without consideration.
Even were this the case, this doesn't connect at all to the idea that God would prevent people from doing bad things. It certainly doesn't give us any reason to believe your second point.
But, getting to that...

Point 2: If something were bad, God would stop it.
There is absolutely no basis for the idea that God, as any theist I've personally met understands him, refuses to allow anyone to do things that are wrong. The idea that anything we are physically capable of doing isn't sinful because God allowed it clearly runs counter to the claims of Western monotheism. Essentially, this is a strawman argument in itself (arguing against an inaccurate representation of an opponent's position), in addition to being another step in the slippery slope. Again, this doesn't support at all the idea that the Bible is fiction (mostly because it is a strawman).

Point 3: If the Bible is wrong about sin, it must be fiction.
Having defined "sin" in a way counter to the Bible (which strikes me as fallacious in itself), you pit this definition against the Bible, then conclude that the Bible must be fiction on the grounds that it doesn't line up with a personal definition. I think defense of the personal definition would be required before this conclusion can be reached. Surely, there are few who have an understanding of "wrongness" that would exclude anything of which human beings are capable.
As an aside, I would also suggest a more accurate use of the term "fiction" - that is meant to describe compositions not intended to be taken as historically factual. "False" or "inaccurate" seems to be closer to what you mean.
There is, however, another jump here:

Point 4: If the Bible is fiction (or wrong about its claims), then anyone defending the Bible must have a baseless system of belief.
Jumping from criticism of the Bible to the idea that a particular member's religion has no foundation assumes not only that the issues I mention above can be dealt with, but also that said member uses the Bible as his only foundation (you may want to inquire about that).
And, to address what may be an implied point:

Point 5: "Congratulations!"
Perhaps it was not how it was meant, but "Congratulations!" seems to me to imply taking a certain amount of pleasure in telling others that their systems of belief are false. If I am wrong, then it wouldn't be the first time. If not, then I'd caution against sadism. We all are in danger of it when debates get heated, and it can definitely do damage to he who indulges in it.
At the very least, this seems glib. In my experience, anything nearly so complex as a religion is not refuted quickly or easily.

But, to at least reference the topic question, I'd say that it is mildly destructive to the individual who indulges in it. I'd say don't do that or eat at McDonald's, but I'd say that it going on relatively openly is much healthier than a state of Victorian-like repression.

[Misty]

For all we know God could be sitting on his cloud relieving himself as he watches adult movies!

We know NOTHING about God or what makes it tick, everything it the Bible, and what Christians have come up with since, is pure and utter speculation without any data to back it up!

[Jester]

For all we know God could be sitting on his cloud relieving himself as he watches adult movies!

We know NOTHING about God or what makes it tick, everything it the Bible, and what Christians have come up with since, is pure and utter speculation without any data to back it up!

In general, when one refers to the Christian God, then we are referring to a specific understanding of God, who is by definition certain things. One needn't agree with this concept, but this is the understanding of which "God" we are talking about.
If you have a different understanding, you are free to put it forth. If, however, you are simply pointing out that we don't know anything about God for certain, then I would agree. My contention would be that we don't know anything at all for certain, leaving me with the conviction that it is pointless to demand certainty before discussing an issue.

[Acrazia]

Perfectly so, unfortunately. Some people can't tell the difference between something that harms others and something that does. My point is, if it were so easy to do, your god would not have made it an option, so it is not sinful, so there is no sin (because you can do anything you want to), so your Bible is a complete piece of fiction, so your entire religion has no foundation. Congratulations!

This is formally referred to as a slippery-slope fallacy. That is: there are several logically unconnected steps here. So reviewing your points...

Ooo~ You know the name of the logical fallacy, too! So smart! Cookie for you.
You immediately assume that the Bible is even a point in this argument. You must first prove that this book is true in the first place. Which, we can say with excellent knowledge, that it is not.
There is no sin, thus nothing is sinful.
I'll go along with this, though. Let us assume that there is any such thing that you argue with. Let's dissect this.

Point 1: That some people (presumably the authors of the Bible) don't understand consequence correctly.
While it may be true that some cannot tell the difference between that which harms others and one's self, we shouldn't assume off-handedly that we know the difference. Some forms of damage are quite subtle, and we can't discredit spiritual damage to one's self as a possibility without consideration.
Even were this the case, this doesn't connect at all to the idea that God would prevent people from doing bad things. It certainly doesn't give us any reason to believe your second point.
But, getting to that...

Counterpoint 1: You are born with innate morality. A baby knows enough to want to punish an evil-doer as young as a few months old.
Here's a link to back up my claim, if you ever get the chance: http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/news-rel ... s-20100527
Everybody knows what consequences are. They aren't taught. They are known. Those that go against this inborn knowledge are seen as "sinful," "sadistic," a general pox on society. But, with things such as masturbation, adultery, not being able to donate money to the collection box, who are we to judge where the line between sin and unfortunate circumstances is? Do you know there are many mental and physical illnesses out there that cause an increased libido, to the point of insanity? Is it okay for them to masturbate because otherwise they'd lose their minds, but not okay for perfectly healthy people? Where does it cross the line into "Spiritual Damage?" Where is the meter for this? Is it just the guilt that the rest of society places on those "sinners?" Is that the measurement? Can you give me a few more details on where spiritual damage is, because this seems like something nobody can measure.


Point 2: If something were bad, God would stop it.
There is absolutely no basis for the idea that God, as any theist I've personally met understands him, refuses to allow anyone to do things that are wrong. The idea that anything we are physically capable of doing isn't sinful because God allowed it clearly runs counter to the claims of Western monotheism. Essentially, this is a strawman argument in itself (arguing against an inaccurate representation of an opponent's position), in addition to being another step in the slippery slope. Again, this doesn't support at all the idea that the Bible is fiction (mostly because it is a strawman).

Counterpoint 2: No, no, no. You misunderstand me. I never said, "If something were bad, God would stop it." I said, "If it (sin) was so easy to do, he would not have made it an option..." I never said he would stop it, heavens no, he created all "sin," why would he want to stop it? You only have so many spots left in heaven, there's got to be a few people who have to take one for the team and live in hell forever. I recall some passage or another that says, basicly, that god is without sin. I wonder how a god who created all sin can be without sin. Maybe you'll have an answer?
(By the way: You knew the word that describes that one, too! Good job! Gold star! Someone knows how to use Wikipedia.)


Point 3: If the Bible is wrong about sin, it must be fiction.
Having defined "sin" in a way counter to the Bible (which strikes me as fallacious in itself), you pit this definition against the Bible, then conclude that the Bible must be fiction on the grounds that it doesn't line up with a personal definition. I think defense of the personal definition would be required before this conclusion can be reached. Surely, there are few who have an understanding of "wrongness" that would exclude anything of which human beings are capable.
As an aside, I would also suggest a more accurate use of the term "fiction" - that is meant to describe compositions not intended to be taken as historically factual. "False" or "inaccurate" seems to be closer to what you mean.
There is, however, another jump here:

Counterpoint 3: Oh, fallacious... Nice word. Sort of sounds like fellatio. Sorry, my "spirit" is far too "damaged" from excessive masturbation and sadism. Moving on...
What is sin, then? Can you describe it to me exactly as it is stated in the Bible and not have any god-fearing Christian not agree. Sin is nothing more than your own interpretation of this book's teachings, as everyone has their own interpretation of the Bible. It is impossible for all of these interpretations to be true, because everyone thinks of it in such a different way. Are you trying to tell me that my out of every other Christian's interpretations is incorrect? Doesn't sound very Christian of you, really...
As an aside as well, fiction is definitely the word I meant to use, because fiction is with stories that are imaginary, and made up by it's creators, and that sounds exactly like what I was getting at. You get it?


Point 4: If the Bible is fiction (or wrong about its claims), then anyone defending the Bible must have a baseless system of belief.
Jumping from criticism of the Bible to the idea that a particular member's religion has no foundation assumes not only that the issues I mention above can be dealt with, but also that said member uses the Bible as his only foundation (you may want to inquire about that).
And, to address what may be an implied point:

Counterpoint 4: Sooo, what you're saying is that there are Christians out there that don't believe/follow the Bible? How about a Jew without his Tor'ah, or the Muslim without his Qu'ran? Otherwise, you're saying that someone with a false belief can possibly have a true belief if they defend it logically. Even if you follow all the steps with nothing but care, you will still end up wrong. The process was right, not the thing being defended. (I don't need to inquire. I know exactly what the answer is... Unless you're talking about hallucinations/miracles/holy-ghost-impregnated-my-wife syndrome, then I'd rather not hear the answer.)

Point 5: "Congratulations!"
Perhaps it was not how it was meant, but "Congratulations!" seems to me to imply taking a certain amount of pleasure in telling others that their systems of belief are false. If I am wrong, then it wouldn't be the first time. If not, then I'd caution against sadism. We all are in danger of it when debates get heated, and it can definitely do damage to he who indulges in it.
At the very least, this seems glib. In my experience, anything nearly so complex as a religion is not refuted quickly or easily.

Counterpoint 5 (Because you insist on a point for one stinking word): Why wouldn't I get a sense of satisfaction that FINALLY, someone shows some sense and agrees that religion is not defendable, is based on faith alone, and has no point in the modern day except to make us wake up early on Sundays and eat fish on Fridays. It's a relief when somebody shows some common sense and doesn't believe in something just because it was beat into him by his father and will defend his hurt as long as possible.
Sadistic? Possibly. But then again, I was a strong believer, too, until after years and years of it giving me nothing but total and complete agony, I realised that it's not real. Can you imagine the pain of losing faith in everything? Nothing you believed is real anymore. It hurt. It hurt a lot. It doesn't mean I'm not glad to be rid of it. Sadistic? Yes, for good reason. Religion takes a little while to be beat into you, and a looong time to be strangled out of it.

But, to at least reference the topic question, I'd say that it is mildly destructive to the individual who indulges in it. I'd say don't do that or eat at McDonald's, but I'd say that it going on relatively openly is much healthier than a state of Victorian-like repression.

Pleasure=destruction. There isn't much point to not enjoy yourself in life. The mortality rate for everybody eventually drops to zero. Life is a pleasure. It'll kill you in the end, anyway. Have fun.

[cnorman18]

MODERATOR WARNING:

Acrazia:

Perhaps you noticed that this forum is billed as a place for "civil and respectful debate." You should also have noticed that civil discourse is required by the rules here, the rules that you promised to abide by when you signed up.

Remarks like the following are most definitely uncivil, not to mention sarcastic and baiting:

Ooo~ You know the name of the logical fallacy, too! So smart! Cookie for you.

(By the way: You knew the word that describes that one, too! Good job! Gold star! Someone knows how to use Wikipedia.)

Oh, fallacious... Nice word. Sort of sounds like fellatio. Sorry, my "spirit" is far too "damaged" from excessive masturbation and sadism. Moving on...

And there is much more. The general attitude toward debate that you have been exhibiting here - that all religion is obviously fictional and false, and that anyone who doesn't agree is ipso facto an idiot without common sense, isn't exactly conducive to civil debate either.

I would suggest that you clean up your act here before you get put on probation and subsequently banned. We demand RESPECT for other members here. If you just want to come on and amuse yourself by calling names, exhibiting your penchant for sarcastic gibes, and just generally throwing rocks, find another forum.

Let me also note, and pointedly, that it is against the rules to respond to moderator interventions or warnings on the forum. If you have a problem with this warning or wish to comment on it, you may do so by PM.

[Jester]

Okay, greetings for round two.
Here we go:

This is formally referred to as a slippery-slope fallacy. That is: there are several logically unconnected steps here. So reviewing your points...

Ooo~ You know the name of the logical fallacy, too! So smart! Cookie for you.

It is generally considered helpful to point out the particular fallacies that one feels are being made. It greatly helps with clarity.

You immediately assume that the Bible is even a point in this argument. You must first prove that this book is true in the first place. Which, we can say with excellent knowledge, that it is not.

Apologies, then. I did not mean to imply that the Bible had been shown to be true. I meant instead to refer to the Bible as an authority on what Christianity claims.

There is no sin, thus nothing is sinful.
I'll go along with this, though. Let us assume that there is any such thing that you argue with. Let's dissect this.

Yes, we are arguing contingencies. If there is no truth to spiritual ideas, then, no, there is no sin. If that is the case, however, I don't see the point of arguing particulars. As such, yes, I had assumed that we were discussing the particulars of the Christian view. Otherwise, the entire topic seemed to me to be superfluous.

Counterpoint 1: You are born with innate morality. A baby knows enough to want to punish an evil-doer as young as a few months old.
Here's a link to back up my claim, if you ever get the chance: http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/news-rel ... s-20100527

I do not disagree with the idea that all people have an inherent concept of morality. This does not, however, evidence that there is any objective truth to morality. Thus far, it has only been shown to be opinions common among most all humans. This is due to the fact that the idea that society or humanity is inherently valuable is not evidenced in any secular way.

Counterpoint 2: No, no, no. You misunderstand me. I never said, "If something were bad, God would stop it." I said, "If it (sin) was so easy to do, he would not have made it an option..."

Fair enough, I'll be sure to note that.
I wouldn't change my basic point, however, which is that this is a strawman position. Western monotheism has never claimed that God doesn't make things options if they are sinful - quite the opposite, actually.

I never said he would stop it, heavens no, he created all "sin," why would he want to stop it?

This is another strawman. There exists no Biblical claim that God created all sin.

You only have so many spots left in heaven, there's got to be a few people who have to take one for the team and live in hell forever.

This also runs counter to the claims of Western monotheism.

I recall some passage or another that says, basicly, that god is without sin. I wonder how a god who created all sin can be without sin. Maybe you'll have an answer?

That he didn't create sin.
Essentially, you seem to be making up a religion that is quite a bit different than Christianity, then arguing against it. This says nothing about actual Christianity.

(By the way: You knew the word that describes that one, too! Good job! Gold star! Someone knows how to use Wikipedia.)

Indeed. I rather like Wikipedia (though I can't claim to have acquired that bit of knowledge there).
I'd recommend using these terms for you as well. It helps greatly with clarity of communication and consistency of thought.

Counterpoint 3: ...
What is sin, then? Can you describe it to me exactly as it is stated in the Bible and not have any god-fearing Christian not agree. Sin is nothing more than your own interpretation of this book's teachings, as everyone has their own interpretation of the Bible.

Actually, I largely agree with this. There is definitely an interpretive element to everything, and concepts of sin are no exception. As for my interpretation, I'd claim that those things which run counter to building loving relationships are sinful. That particular interpretation is easily supported by the Bible (Matthew 22:34-40, if you want the reference).

It is impossible for all of these interpretations to be true, because everyone thinks of it in such a different way.

The fact that people disagree is not evidence of the truth or falsehood of any particular claim.

Are you trying to tell me that my out of every other Christian's interpretations is incorrect? Doesn't sound very Christian of you, really...

I don't claim to know everything about Christianity, but don't see any point at which I am required not to draw conclusions about which interpretations I find sound.

As an aside as well, fiction is definitely the word I meant to use, because fiction is with stories that are imaginary, and made up by it's creators, and that sounds exactly like what I was getting at. You get it?

"Inaccurate Report" would better describe your position here.

Counterpoint 4: Sooo, what you're saying is that there are Christians out there that don't believe/follow the Bible?

Not at all, I was claiming that the Bible is not the whole support for any particular person's beliefs. As you have pointed out above, people have many different understandings and interpretations - meaning that we don't look only to those words.
In particular, you had made the inference that the Bible was the sole support of cnorman's beliefs, which I happen to know to be untrue based on past discussions with him.

Otherwise, you're saying that someone with a false belief can possibly have a true belief if they defend it logically.

If someone can defend his/her beliefs with sound logic, then I would question the assumption that it was false to begin with.

Counterpoint 5 (Because you insist on a point for one stinking word): Why wouldn't I get a sense of satisfaction that FINALLY, someone shows some sense and agrees that religion is not defendable, is based on faith alone, and has no point in the modern day except to make us wake up early on Sundays and eat fish on Fridays. It's a relief when somebody shows some common sense and doesn't believe in something just because it was beat into him by his father and will defend his hurt as long as possible.

I'm not personally in favor of making you do any such things, but can't agree that this is either common sense, or what cnorman was saying.

Sadistic? Possibly. But then again, I was a strong believer, too, until after years and years of it giving me nothing but total and complete agony, I realised that it's not real. Can you imagine the pain of losing faith in everything? Nothing you believed is real anymore. It hurt. It hurt a lot.

To the end that you would believe me, yes, I do know what you mean. I personally have a great deal of experience with that exact feeling, and completely agree that it is painful.
In general, I am of the opinion that, if we see someone experiencing it, we ought to give them some sympathy and a few gentle words - and be extra-careful about sadism.

None of these counterpoints, though, address the matter of the slippery-slope fallacy. Whether or not they have been defended as individual ideas, no attempt has been made here to connect them to one another. As such, this still seems to be more a series of unconnected claims than a structured argument.

But, to at least reference the topic question, I'd say that it is mildly destructive to the individual who indulges in it. I'd say don't do that or eat at McDonald's, but I'd say that it going on relatively openly is much healthier than a state of Victorian-like repression.

Pleasure=destruction. There isn't much point to not enjoy yourself in life. The mortality rate for everybody eventually drops to zero. Life is a pleasure. It'll kill you in the end, anyway. Have fun.

It seems I was unclear. I didn't mean to infer in the slightest that pleasure was inherently destructive. I meant only to say that masterbation, while unhealthy, is much less damaging than sexual repression.

[WinePusher]

Many people have debated about this, but I have not found any conclusive
answer yet. Is masturbation sinful?

Nope. If it was, then you wouldn't have been given the ability to do so. Have fun.

Freedom of the will? Do you deny humans possess the ability to choose freely for themslves.