Is masturbation REALLY a sin?

[JESUS<3sYOU]

My whole life I have rarely heard from any specific denomination that masturbation is a sin. My dad who was catholic but then seen it was wrong and became nondenominational says Catholics usually are the ones that believe in this. I asked some other people to about this and they all said theres no mention of masturbating being a sin.

They said to have sex with someone else when not married is a sin, but to have sex with yourself (essentially) is acceptable.

Whats your opinion?

If you really need to know, masturbation is "fornication" and hence a sin, revisit the Apostle in the New Testament for more information. We know that early Christians and early Church considered masturbation to be fornication from other sources such as the Desert Fathers some of which are disciples of Christ's disciples and who as a result of that lived the word of God. To ignore that knowledge would just be stupid, because then you'd have to speculate until Kingdom come about what fornication really means and not be able to get any answer.

I hope that was helpful to you.

 

[Zebra1552]

If you really need to know, masturbation is "fornication" and hence a sin, revisit the Apostle in the New Testament for more information.

Fornication has never involved masturbation and I challenge you to provide one iota of evidence that indicates otherwise. Back your claim.

We know that early Christians and early Church considered masturbation to be fornication from other sources such as the Desert Fathers some of which are disciples of Christ's disciples and who as a result of that lived the word of God. To ignore that knowledge would just be stupid, because then you'd have to speculate until Kingdom come about what fornication really means and not be able to get any answer.

I hope that was helpful to you.

Appeal to tradition doesn't work. To ignore that is illogical, and to declare that your position is right or the other is stupid is merely a false dilemma scare tactic. Don't mock God by reinterpreting the Bible to suit your fancy.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Fornication has never involved masturbation and I challenge you to provide one iota of evidence that indicates otherwise. Back your claim.


Appeal to tradition doesn't work. To ignore that is illogical, and to declare that your position is right or the other is stupid is merely a false dilemma scare tactic. Don't mock God by reinterpreting the Bible to suit your fancy.

Before I leave this thread I am going to reply to what you said, even if your accusations are apparently false. First of all, I already supplied a source for my claim. You can read it or ignore it as you wish, but I believe it's called Sayings of the Desert Fathers in English.

Second, if you do not want to resort to tradition, then you're obviously never going to get an answer, as I already said, neither one backing your claim nor one backing mine.

Furthermore, without tradition the whole question of what Scripture says becomes moot, because Scripture is also tradition; the most important, most fundamental part of tradition, but tradition nevertheless. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the Church to Scripture. Scripture is a gift from God to the Church.

Scripture belongs to the Church and the Church belongs to God. Adam is the first member of the Church, also known as the first Patriarch. Where was Scripture when Adam walked the Earth as a mortal? It did not exist, at least not to our understanding as mortals.

 

[Zebra1552]

Before I leave this thread I am going to reply to what you said, even if your accusations are apparently false. First of all, I already supplied a source for my claim. You can read it or ignore it as you wish, but I believe it's called Sayings of the Desert Fathers in English.

You're right, I'm not going to go buy/read an entire book just to find backing for your statement. You can find it yourself since you're the one making the claim. It's not my job to do your homework for you, and I haven't made any accusations.

Second, if you do not want to resort to tradition, then you're obviously never going to get an answer, as I already said, neither one backing your claim nor one backing mine.

Tradition does not establish what is and is not sin. Many, many things have been declared sinful out of tradition that we laugh at now and think nothing of. The Bible is the only document which is able to do that, as it was inspired by God.

Furthermore, without tradition the whole question of what Scripture says becomes moot, because Scripture is also tradition; the most important, most fundamental part of tradition, but tradition nevertheless. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the Church to Scripture. Scripture is a gift from God to the Church.

Scripture is a compilation of 66 books that have been inspired by God and address what is and is not sinful from God's perspective not just man's. It isn't tradition. It's a document that requires lots and lots of background information to comprehend- mainly history and culture. The only way the early church is part of that history is with its compilation.

Scripture belongs to the Church and the Church belongs to God. Adam is the first member of the Church, also known as the first Patriarch. Where was Scripture when Adam walked the Earth as a mortal? It did not exist, at least not to our understanding as mortals.

Scripture doesn't belong to anyone. It is a compilation of 66 volumes which are written to a very broad audience, both Jews and Gentiles, Christians and non-Christians. It isn't something that belongs to any group of people.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

You're right, I'm not going to go buy/read an entire book just to find backing for your statement. You can find it yourself since you're the one making the claim. It's not my job to do your homework for you, and I haven't made any accusations.

It's not my homework. It's not my job to do your reading. I said that's where you can find it, and if you want to slander me just for referring to a source then I guess you can do that, but don't expect me to be patient enough to care. You ask for proof but you refuse to review it. Not to mention of course that your own claim, to the effect that fornication never meant masturbation, is unproven. If you think that you know better than those who walked close to the Lord how to interpret every bit of the Scripture, then neither in that case do I concern myself. I don't follow you but Jesus Christ.

Scripture is a compilation of 66 books

In Protestantism that took out some of the books from the Holy Scripture, their number is indeed 66.

Scripture doesn't belong to anyone. It is a compilation of 66 volumes which are written to a very broad audience, both Jews and Gentiles, Christians and non-Christians. It isn't something that belongs to any group of people.

The Church is Israel, those who struggle with God. If you think that's just another "group of people", a collective like any other, then so be it your opinion. And as I already said, there are more than 66 books in the original version of the Scripture. Protestants took some of them out. Some Protestants wanted to take even more of them out, but they settled for something in between.

The only way the early church is part of that history is with its compilation.

The early Church is documented in the Scripture, just as I said. Adam is the first member of the Church. The first author of the Scripture is Moses. In other words, the Church existed before the Scripture.

 

[Zebra1552]

It's not my homework. It's not my job to do your reading. I said that's where you can find it, and if you want to slander me just for referring to a source then I guess you can do that, but don't expect me to be patient enough to care. You ask for proof but you refuse to review it.

Most people don't got citing an entire book as proof for something, nevermind failing to give the author and page number. I didn't slander you. I'm telling you that it's not my responsibility to back your claim.

Not to mention of course that your own claim, to the effect that fornication never meant masturbation, is unproven.

You made an affirmative claim. I disagreed with it. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove you wrong, and I cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to back your own claim.

If you think that you know better than those who walked close to the Lord how to interpret every bit of the Scripture, then neither in that case do I concern myself. I don't follow you but Jesus Christ.

None of the apostles made any statements about masturbation, so the above statement is a red herring meant to distract from the issue.

In Protestantism that took out some of the books from the Holy Scripture, their number is indeed 66.

Semantics.

The Church is Israel, those who struggle with God. If you think that's just another "group of people", a collective like any other, then so be it your opinion. And as I already said, there are more than 66 books in the original version of the Scripture. Protestants took some of them out. Some Protestants wanted to take even more of them out, but they settled for something in between.

That does not negate my point whether it be true or false. Stick to the issue.

The early Church is documented in the Scripture, just as I said. Adam is the first member of the Church. The first author of the Scripture is Moses. In other words, the Church existed before the Scripture.

The word Church doesn't even appear until the NT. How can the church be before Scripture if Scripture doesn't even mention it until after Jesus is dead/risen?

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

All you need to be able to do is to learn from others, who were close to the Lord. Books are available online and offline. Find them, search them, do whatever you want, and if you don't want help then don't ask for it. Bye bye.

 

[painloc21]

You know the reason that a lot of Christians are laughed at by the general public is because of their own egos. I used to be like that. I had a real problem with just saying "I don't know." And thats the problem i am seeing in a lot of these threads. Someone who clearly has no evidence of what they are saying but sticking strictly to it simply because their ego wont let them concede that maybe they don't have all the answers. Their ego wont let them see that sometimes we do not have evidence. Sometimes we just have to go on faith.

 

[Zebra1552]

All you need to be able to do is to learn from others, who were close to the Lord. Books are available online and offline. Find them, search them, do whatever you want, and if you don't want help then don't ask for it. Bye bye.

I never asked for help. You made a claim, and I asked for backing for that claim, and you told me to read a book.

 

[Zebra1552]

You know the reason that a lot of Christians are laughed at by the general public is because of their own egos. I used to be like that. I had a real problem with just saying "I don't know." And thats the problem i am seeing in a lot of these threads. Someone who clearly has no evidence of what they are saying but sticking strictly to it simply because their ego wont let them concede that maybe they don't have all the answers. Their ego wont let them see that sometimes we do not have evidence. Sometimes we just have to go on faith.

I've got plenty of evidence for the positions I argue. That's kind of why I argue them, that and to learn more about other positions.

 

[painloc21]

I've got plenty of evidence for the positions I argue. That's kind of why I argue them, that and to learn more about other positions.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Faith does not mean faint belief in wishful thinking. Faith means faithfulness to God.

 

[Zebra1552]

Faith does not mean faint belief in wishful thinking. Faith means faithfulness to God.

Yes, to God rather than to people who merely stated their own opinions on a matter. That means going by the Bible rather than that which came after it.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Yes, to God rather than to people who merely stated their own opinions on a matter. That means going by the Bible rather than that which came after it.

Just because Scripture isn't as rude as people who inquire about masturbation, and just because that word (or a word in the original text with the same meaning rather) doesn't occur there doesn't mean that it's not in there. That's the beauty of tradition, that those who interpreted Scripture a long time ago did so not only in the light of what people mentioned in the Scripture had taught them, but also that they had the capacity to think and to understand a lot of things that are indeed there if only you open your eyes and if only you are ready for it:

"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." (Gal. 5:24)

 

[Zebra1552]

Just because Scripture isn't as rude as people who inquire about masturbation

I'm not inquiring. I said that. I know my position on the matter. It's not sinful, generally. It might be sinful for some, like if people get addicted or whatever, but it's not stated anywhere to be a sin.

, and just because that word (or a word in the original text with the same meaning rather) doesn't occur there doesn't mean that it's not in there.

The Bible says nothing about masturbation or anything to do with masturbation. And before you quote Matthew 5 at me, read post 41.

That's the beauty of tradition, that those who interpreted Scripture a long time ago did so not only in the light of what people mentioned in the Scripture had taught them, but also that they had the capacity to think and to understand a lot of things that are indeed there if only you open your eyes and if only you are ready for it:

"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." (Gal. 5:24)

That verse has nothing to do with masturbation. That has to do with eliminating our sinful natures. The Bible never mentions it at all nor implies anything about it, nor makes any statement about the act itself, therefore it is not sinful and therefore has nothing to do with the flesh.

Futhermore, you are advocating a deductive approach, which easily leads to people reading things into Scripture, rather than taking an inductive approach to let the Bible speak for itself. If you have evidence for it being sinful, then present it. If you're going to sit there and take potshots at me, then I'm just going to ignore you.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

That verse has nothing to do with masturbation. That has to do with eliminating our sinful natures. The Bible never mentions it at all nor implies anything about it, nor makes any statement about the act itself, therefore it is not sinful and therefore has nothing to do with the flesh.

Masturbation has nothing to do with the crucified flesh. And you don't believe that Christ sanctified the flesh? That's nothing new of course: in fact such gnostic heresies are mentioned many times in the New Testament. Those who claimed at Paul's reception in the Areopag to have no need for the resurrection make up one example. Others are found in the letters. The flesh cannot be put in a simplified category and be labelled sinful just like that, especially not when when it's the crucified flesh, and not just any flesh. Crucified flesh does not equal "eliminated" flesh, but flesh that Jesus brought before the Father to have it sanctified.

Stick to your "inductive" approach, call me out for nitpicking, "semantics", ask for more verses or patronize me saying that I shouldn't quote them - I'm sure you thought of everything. An inductive approach might work fine with some books, but it comes off as a little bit obsolete with the Scripture.

N.b. I'm not the one who's arguing that Scripture is either clear as desinfection or completely unintelligible, and nor was it deductive what I said. But it was based on the assumption that in the Scripture God gave us something more than what cold reason could fathom. From my side of the matter, there are a lot of things that I did not mention. I did not resort to simplified "masturbation-isn't-mentioned" arguments that one can safely stand by with a simple search engine, without having to read the Scripture at all. I'm not a rationalist, and I don't believe, as some do, that God gave us a Holy Scripture which is to be treated as the retail catalogue. Neither do I think that it's a catalogue of sins, by the way: no, in fact I made that clear in my first post and it was you, Jaws13, who said that masturbation can't be a sin since it isn't mentioned, and who had to accuse me of doing something wrong with the Scripture.

I had not planned to make more than one post in this thread, but a few random accusations lured me back in. And it's always nice to revisit a beautiful passage in the Scripture, to dwell on God's wonderous works.

 

[Zebra1552]

Masturbation has nothing to do with the crucified flesh.

It has nothing to do with the flesh, crucified or non-crucified.

And you don't believe that Christ sanctified the flesh?

Where are you pulling that from?

That's nothing new of course: in fact such gnostic heresies are mentioned many times in the New Testament. Those who claimed at Paul's reception in the Areopag to have no need for the resurrection make up one example. Others are found in the letters. The flesh cannot be put in a simplified category and be labelled sinful just like that, especially not when when it's the crucified flesh, and not just any flesh. Crucified flesh does not equal "eliminated" flesh, but flesh that Jesus brought before the Father to have it sanctified.

Your point?

Stick to your "inductive" approach, call me out for nitpicking, "semantics", ask for more verses or patronize me saying that I shouldn't quote them - I'm sure you thought of everything. An inductive approach might work fine with some books, but it comes off as a little bit obsolete with the Scripture.

Do you know what inductive means? Do you know basic Bible interpretation methods? You don't read things into something as important as Scripture. You look at what the text says, look at the context, and go from there. You don't start with an assumption about what it says, you figure out what it means by studying it from the ground up.
\

N.b. I'm not the one who's arguing that Scripture is either clear as desinfection or completely unintelligible, and nor was it deductive what I said. But it was based on the assumption that in the Scripture God gave us something more than what cold reason could fathom. From my side of the matter, there are a lot of things that I did not mention. I did not resort to simplified "masturbation-isn't-mentioned" arguments that one can safely stand by with a simple search engine, without having to read the Scripture at all. I'm not a rationalist, and I don't believe, as some do, that God gave us a Holy Scripture which is to be treated as the retail catalogue. Neither do I think that it's a catalogue of sins, by the way: no, in fact I made that clear in my first post and it was you, Jaws13, who said that masturbation can't be a sin since it isn't mentioned, and who had to accuse me of doing something wrong with the Scripture.

First of all, an inductive method isn't 'cold reason' as you assume. It means you work from the ground up, from basic to advanced, from the text to the overall context. I came to this understanding from years of research on the matter, not some Google search. I previously thought it was a sin. So your accusation that I'm using some safe, simplified argument is baseless. If you intend to discuss this issue, then you can cut the fluff.

I never said masturbation cannot be sin. I said that generally it is not a sin: it is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, nor does the Bible mention anything involved with masturbation that would condemn it. The Bible does talk about self control, which means that masturbation, contrary to what you seem to think I've said, can be a sin if one becomes addicted or does it too much. It's something that's determined by the individual, just like meat sacrificed to idols.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

You don't start with an assumption about what it says

I didn't.

 

[Zebra1552]

I didn't.

By pointing to extrabiblical material and saying that the Bible should be read with that knowledge in mind, or that the material has any sort of authority on matters of sin, you do take a deductive approach and assume something about what it says. The Bible says nothing about masturbation or anything to do with masturbation, and you claimed it was a sin.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Um and okay you get the last word. Give it your best.