What the Bible say about masturbation

[Chris5679]

The Bible does not say anything directly about masturbation. However, there is one Bible passage that is sometimes interpreted as a condemnation of masturbation:

Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his sperm on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also. (NIV, Genesis 38:8-10)

What Onan did was not masturbation, but a form of birth control known as coitus interruptus. Onan's primary sin was probably his resistance to the custom of providing offspring for his dead brother by impregnating his widow.

However a parallel is drawn between Onan's act and the wasting of the sperm that occurs when males touch. Thomas Bokenkotter, a Catholic priest and historian, explains the traditional church opposition to masturbation this way:

Data from the sciences have also severely challenged the traditional condemnation of masturbation, which to some extent was based on outmoded views of human reproduction. At one time it was believed the male sperm was the only factor in human reproduction and the sperm was regarded as humans in miniature. Hence spilling it out was tantamount to abortion as well as a waste of a precious element. Other myths also played a role. Masturbation was blamed for a whole host of physical and spiritual ills such as acne, asthma, heart murmurs, lethargy and even insanity.

From Thomas Bokenkotter, Essential Catholicism, Doubleday, 1985, p. 334.

It is now known that sperm cells are not miniature humans; a man's sperm must unite with a woman's egg before a baby can be formed. Furthermore, sperm cells not ejected from the body simply die after a few weeks anyway, and are continuously replaced. It is also now known that masturbation does not cause acne, insanity or any of the other ills it was blamed for in the past.

Today, the Roman Catholic Church still considers masturbation to be a sin. However, many other churches have accepted it as normal for young unmarried people of both sexes and an acceptable alternative to the very real dangers and evils of promiscuous sexual intercourse. Even many Roman Catholic theologians say that the potential sin of masturbation is not the act itself, but in becoming obsessed with it to the point of blocking normal social and sexual development.

 

[dayhiker]

very good post, Chris. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Chris5679]

I just got tired of hearing about it lol

 

[razzelflabben]

This issue has recently come up in our household (long story) Where I agree that it is hard to make a biblical case for mastrubation being a sin, I think there is much scriptural evidence to suggest it is not a wise thing to delve into, add to this new scientific evidence and the case gets stronger...for those who think that because I'm a woman I can't offer anything of value here, my husband agrees and was the first to bring up the topic as he had his own struggles.

point 1. few people especially men do not have some form of lust issue when mastrubating. A picture (Physical or mental) is not always necessary, but lust usually is.
2. Lust is according to scripture, a sin as such, the lust involved is without doubt sinful, if the act pulls us deeper into lust, then it would be a temptation to avoid.
3. In the odd case that lust is not involved...one would lack self control, something already stated would be of God. Now modern science shows that sexual acts produce chemicals that create an addiction, therefore the act talked about here, would be building an addiction.

The real heart of all of this, is that such behavior leads to sin or dangerously close to sin in the best case senerio. Is there any true believer who considers getting this close to sin a good thing? And how would you know if you would cross that line until you had already engaged in this type activity and found yourself in sin. Kind of like seeing how much alcohol you can drink without becoming an alcoholic, or seeing how close you can get to intercourse without actually having sex. Technically, the bible doesn't list that as a sin, but people who are wise know that playing with that kind of fire almost always leads to sin.

Well that's the two cents worth answer from the Razzelflabben household. It's about counting the cost and staying pure before a holy God.

 

[DamianWarS]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The Bible does not say anything directly about masturbation. However...[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

Thomas Bokenkotter's view expresses 1) his Catholicism and 2) an aged tradition. I'm not discrediting what he says but I'm sure the context of the quote was for historical data on the subject instead of something that can be thought of as main stream thinking today. I understand that the history of the subject can shape our thinking however bringing up that history doesn't really add any weight to your argument since it has lost its relevance because we don't think that way anymore. But lets assume Bokenkotter was trying to be relevant in his time. Well "in his time" are the operative words because that quote is from a book published in January 1985 so at the very least it is 25 (soon to be exactly 26) years removed from being relevant today. I find your use of the quote irresponsible to the subject matter.

Masturbation is a flawed answer to fix a flawed system that is corrupted by sin. The focus of our culture may in fact lead to masturbation in most every person struggling with a sexual release but that is an example of how our system corners us into that position. We might not be able to control the system as a whole but we can help correct its thinking through a God focused approach on sexuality.

Masturbation may not be mentioned in the bible but then what biblical principle should shape our understanding of the subject today? If we pull the closest example with sex as a general level we see a system that God has designed that is in the confines of a marriage. We see a focus on the husband to please his wife and the wife to please her husband and never a focus on our immediate selfish wants. Paul even instructs us that instead of "burning with passion" we should get married. What a perfect time for Paul to tell us that God designed masturbation as a release but he never does say that he instead says the "fix" is only through marriage something that agrees with previous biblical ideas. In contrast other expressions of sex are grouped together as sexual immorality which is strictly forbidden.

I understand that masturbation happens and probably most people have done it but we should not embrace this as something God desires for us. Just because it happens doesn't make it right but even though we fail in an infinite different ways we can always seek restoration through Christ (whether we know our errors or not) We should interpreted masturbation as another flawed system that is corrupted by sin. Only with complete restoration through Christ can we ever possibly know what a perfect system looks like and this is what we should be striving for and what our focus should look like.

 

[Zebra1552]

Jesus says that if your hand causes you to sin, to cut it off. This is not a specific command to a question about masturbation. But Sexual activities outside of the marital covenant are considered fornication. Paul told the Corinthians that the husband has not power over his own body but his wife. In cases of unmarried people, we are told to honor our bodies as instruments of righteousness, not to condemn people who have (as I have been guilty of it, when in self-will).

Any evidence for that opinion?

The Holy Spirit gives us self-control, so while we may feel pleasure from masturbation,
people who are considered sex-maniacs (whoremongers) will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Having said this, my first feeling of the Holy Spirit becoming one with me was better than any sexual experience in the flesh. Feeling God's pleasures (Psalm 16:11) is what the faithful have to look forward to. With God all things are possible.
If you have felt God's oneness, masturbation, I believe, would be a boring fleshly imitation to you.

Masturbation is selfish homosexuality.

Any evidence for that opinion?

This issue has recently come up in our household (long story) Where I agree that it is hard to make a biblical case for mastrubation being a sin, I think there is much scriptural evidence to suggest it is not a wise thing to delve into, add to this new scientific evidence and the case gets stronger...for those who think that because I'm a woman I can't offer anything of value here, my husband agrees and was the first to bring up the topic as he had his own struggles.

point 1. few people especially men do not have some form of lust issue when mastrubating. A picture (Physical or mental) is not always necessary, but lust usually is.
2. Lust is according to scripture, a sin as such, the lust involved is without doubt sinful, if the act pulls us deeper into lust, then it would be a temptation to avoid.
3. In the odd case that lust is not involved...one would lack self control, something already stated would be of God. Now modern science shows that sexual acts produce chemicals that create an addiction, therefore the act talked about here, would be building an addiction.

What is lust? Why does Jesus only address lust towards those who are married? Why does Jesus only address lust in front of religious leaders, who would not have been single? What evidence do you have for your opinion?

The real heart of all of this, is that such behavior leads to sin or dangerously close to sin in the best case senerio. Is there any true believer who considers getting this close to sin a good thing? And how would you know if you would cross that line until you had already engaged in this type activity and found yourself in sin. Kind of like seeing how much alcohol you can drink without becoming an alcoholic, or seeing how close you can get to intercourse without actually having sex. Technically, the bible doesn't list that as a sin, but people who are wise know that playing with that kind of fire almost always leads to sin.

This is a slippery slope fallacy. Do you have any logical arguments?

 

[bliz]

Masturbation may not be mentioned in the bible but then what biblical principle should shape our understanding of the subject today? If we pull the closest example with sex as a general level we see a system that God has designed that is in the confines of a marriage. We see a focus on the husband to please his wife and the wife to please her husband and never a focus on our immediate selfish wants. Paul even instructs us that instead of "burning with passion" we should get married. What a perfect time for Paul to tell us that God designed masturbation as a release but he never does say that he instead says the "fix" is only through marriage something that agrees with previous biblical ideas. In contrast other expressions of sex are grouped together as sexual immorality which is strictly forbidden.

This is also a perfect time for God to be very direct and tell us that masturbation is not acceptable, but He doesn't say that, either. I don't think he forgot to mention it or found the subject embarrassing.

 

[razzelflabben]

What is lust?

to burn with desire....

Why does Jesus only address lust towards those who are married?

what makes you think this is true, consider these two passages.... Matthew 5:28, "But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Nothing here specifies only a married man, in fact, if one is ever to marry and has a sexual relationship with another woman, who btw, ends up not being his wife, he commits adultery....I know this is an uncomfortable teaching for those who put their sexual desires in the "need" category, but it is what scripture teaches...scripture after scripture we see that sex outside of marriage is considered adultery.

Job 31:11-12 (NLT) "For lust is a shameful sin, a crime that should be punished. It is a devastating fire that destroys to hell. It would wipe out everything I own."

Notice again, it is not aimed at marriage men only, but rather at the act of lust, no group excluded. So where you get the idea that lust is only a problem for married men is beyond me.

This is a slippery slope fallacy. Do you have any logical arguments?

Logically, if you want to avoid sin, as scripture tells us to do, then avoiding those things that lead to sin is wisdom...thus, if one wishes to be without sin, it is wise to refrain from masturbation....oh, and btw, when masturbation enters the marriage, it has a whole new set of problems that can in certain situations destroy a marriage. (notice the word can)

 

[razzelflabben]

This is also a perfect time for God to be very direct and tell us that masturbation is not acceptable, but He doesn't say that, either. I don't think forgot to mention it or found the subject embarrassing.

He also doesn't cover the issue of cyber bullying or parents that abuse their children, does that make these things okay? What about arson, I don't see that listed among the sins, should we then allow arsons to go free because God doesn't label it a sin? What of identity theft? Or should we read scripture, for the context of love being the measure for what is acceptable to God and allow the culture we live in to be shaped by the law?

 

[Armistead14]

People blame lust which has nothing to do with sexual thought, but God created puberty which causes us to have sexual thought and desire, so if that's lust....blame your creator that made us have sexual thoughts and desires from puberty....

 

[Zebra1552]

to burn with desire....

And where are you getting your source? Furthermore, what does 'to burn with desire' mean? Have you done a word study on the phrase?

what makes you think this is true, consider these two passages.... Matthew 5:28, "But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Nothing here specifies only a married man, in fact, if one is ever to marry and has a sexual relationship with another woman, who btw, ends up not being his wife, he commits adultery....

Actually, something here does. See, it references adultery. Look at the context for it as well. Who is Jesus addressing? Single youths? No. Answer the questions. Here they are again:

What is lust? Why does Jesus only address lust towards those who are married? Why does Jesus only address lust in front of religious leaders, who would not have been single? What evidence do you have for your opinion?

I know this is an uncomfortable teaching for those who put their sexual desires in the "need" category, but it is what scripture teaches...scripture after scripture we see that sex outside of marriage is considered adultery.

Show that masturbation is sex, first of all, and secondly show this 'Scripture after Scripture' evidence you claim to have. I'd bet money that every single one of them is talking about sex with other people.

Job 31:11-12 (NLT) "For lust is a shameful sin, a crime that should be punished. It is a devastating fire that destroys to hell. It would wipe out everything I own."

Notice again, it is not aimed at marriage men only, but rather at the act of lust, no group excluded.

NRSV:
Job 31:9 "If my heart has been enticed by a woman, and I have lain in wait at my neighbor's door;
Job 31:10 then let my wife grind for another, and let other men kneel over her.
Job 31:11 For that would be a heinous crime; that would be a criminal offense;
Job 31:12 for that would be a fire consuming down to Abaddon, and it would burn to the root all my harvest.

Job is a married man. Plus, that verse isn't talking about lust. It's a different word entirely. But don't take my word for it.


NAS with Strong's numbers:
Job 31:11 "For that would be a lustfulH2154 crimeH2154; Moreover, it would be an iniquityH5771 punishable by judgesH6414.

H2154
זמּה / זמּה
zimmâh / zammâh
BDB Definition:
1) plan, device, wickedness, evil plan, mischievous purpose
1a) plan, purpose
1b) evil device, wickedness
1c) not chaste, incest, licentiousness, adultery, idolatry, harlotry
Part of Speech: verb

This isn't a thought, it is an action plan. Usually when people touch they don't plan to go have sex with whoever they think about- if indeed they're thinking about a real person.

So where you get the idea that lust is only a problem for married men is beyond me.

Where did I say that? I never said 'lust', which you still haven't defined, isn't a problem for everyone, I asked you a question about the context of the verse you cited, which you did not answer.

Logically, if you want to avoid sin, as scripture tells us to do, then avoiding those things that lead to sin is wisdom...

Show that erotic fantasy or masturbation leads to sin. You haven't shown that it leads to sin. Heck, you haven't even defined what lust is.

thus, if one wishes to be without sin, it is wise to refrain from masturbation....

Who are you to judge that? Are you God? You cited Matthew 5, and that's just peachy. But I asked you several questions about it and all you've done is ranted on about how masturbating is a sin. Ranting is not socially appropriate in a discussion when someone asks you a question. Typically when someone asks you a question it's polite to answer it.

oh, and btw, when masturbation enters the marriage, it has a whole new set of problems that can in certain situations destroy a marriage. (notice the word can)

So can consuming food. Does that make consuming food a sin?

 

[DamianWarS]

This is also a perfect time for God to be very direct and tell us that masturbation is not acceptable, but He doesn't say that, either. I don't think forgot to mention it or found the subject embarrassing.

when Paul instructs how to deal with "burning passion" that doesn't mean that everything he didn't mention is up for interpretation simply because he didn't mention it. He kind of spells it out very easy for us to understand

"But if [you] cannot control [yourself], [you] should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

I suppose the question is can "burning with passion" mean masturbation. I suppose as a mechanical motion it doesn't... but that has a different term and its called "habitual masturbation" and suggest a whole much of other problems. So for most of us masturbation and "burning with passion" is the same thing. So we can look at what Paul says and interpret "it is better to marry than touch"

 

[Zebra1552]

when Paul instructs how to deal with "burning passion" that doesn't mean that everything he didn't mention is up for interpretation simply because he didn't mention it. He kind of spells it out very easy for us to understand

"But if [you] cannot control [yourself], [you] should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

I suppose the question is can "burning with passion" mean masturbation. I suppose as a mechanical motion it doesn't... but that has a different term and its called "habitual masturbation" and suggest a whole much of other problems. So for most of us masturbation and "burning with passion" is the same thing. So we can look at what Paul says and interpret "it is better to marry than touch"

That's nothing but an assumption and an appeal to popularity. Who is 'most of us'? Is there a group of you somewhere? Where do you get your texts from?

 

[DamianWarS]

That's nothing but an assumption and an appeal to popularity. Who is 'most of us'? Is there a group of you somewhere? Where do you get your texts from?

masturbation void of a "burning passion" is sexually dysfunction based on a secular level. You can't separate sexuality with masturbation and still call it normal. Our concept of sexuality however developed will shape how we approach masturbation and what motivates us before and during masturbation. So if we are sexually attracted to "whatever" then that will be a part of whatever sexuality we take part in. If you are sexual attracted to yourself then you are lusting after yourself (also dysfunction)

So if you want to talk about masturbation just as a mechanical motion then that does not apply to what Paul is saying in the verse I quoted however you have other problems and will approach sex with very dysfunctional motives. But Paul also teaches us (a few verse back) that our bodies belong to our spouse and our spouse has authority over our body not us.

Your mechanical sexual stimulate through masturbation perverts the focus of an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in healthy sex and promotes sex without love, very selfish void of relationship and love. Certainly masturbation can lead to this type of thinking which is another reason why it goes against the design of sex God made for us.

If "burning passion" is a part of your masturbation then there is no argument Paul addresses it in the verse I quoted.

 

[razzelflabben]

People blame lust which has nothing to do with sexual thought, but God created puberty which causes us to have sexual thought and desire, so if that's lust....blame your creator that made us have sexual thoughts and desires from puberty....

Lust is a burning desire, not a thought that sex might be an incredible experience. In puberty, those thoughts give us opportunity to grow spiritually by taking the thoughts captive and turning our focus onto the good things of God rather than allowing them to become burning desires of lust. IOW's the desire is not the flaw, our nature to live by the flesh rather than the spirit is the flaw.

 

[Zebra1552]

masturbation void of a "burning passion" is sexually dysfunction based on a secular level.

Burning with passion is hardly typical of masturbation. Burning with passion within the realm of masturbation typically means rape fantasies, not normal, healthy sexual attraction as you seem to be assuming.

You can't separate sexuality with masturbation and still call it normal. Our concept of sexuality however developed will shape how we approach masturbation and what motivates us before and during masturbation. So if we are sexually attracted to "whatever" then that will be a part of whatever sexuality we take part in. If you are sexual attracted to yourself then you are lusting after yourself (also dysfunction)

So now you're redefining the Bible's terms to mean that lust is mere sexual attraction. I guess God made us a doomed race. What kind of god would give his creation an unalterable state of sin and expect them to overcome it? Sounds sadistic to me.

So if you want to talk about masturbation just as a mechanical motion then that does not apply to what Paul is saying in the verse I quoted however you have other problems and will approach sex with very dysfunctional motives. But Paul also teaches us (a few verse back) that our bodies belong to our spouse and our spouse has authority over our body not us.

Speaking in the context of marriage. Paul isn't talking about sexual attraction. He's talking about something far more serious. Look it up.

Your mechanical sexual stimulate through masturbation perverts the focus of an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in healthy sex and promotes sex without love, very selfish void of relationship and love. Certainly masturbation can lead to this type of thinking which is another reason why it goes against the design of sex God made for us.

This is nothing but a straw man argument. You are assuming that I'm saying something, and then ripping that apart rather than addressing what I have said.

If "burning passion" is a part of your masturbation then there is no argument Paul addresses it in the verse I quoted.

Once again, this is an assumption. You are creating a false dilemma by assuming that either it has it and Paul addresses it- not even defining what it is according to biblical standards- or it it doesn't and it's dysfunctional. There are more options than that: How you've defined burning with passion is incorrect. You look at the term in context and as it's used elsewhere and I daresay you'll change your tune.

 

[Zebra1552]

Lust is a burning desire, not a thought that sex might be an incredible experience.

Then lust is far worse than anything that typically has to do with masturbation. If you're burning with desire when you touch, then you need to see a therapist because you're not having a normal fantasy, it's more into the realm of rape fantasies.

In puberty, those thoughts give us opportunity to grow spiritually by taking the thoughts captive and turning our focus onto the good things of God rather than allowing them to become burning desires of lust. IOW's the desire is not the flaw, our nature to live by the flesh rather than the spirit is the flaw.

Oh, that's a new one. God gives us sexual desires so we can 'get more spiritual'. You know, in the middle ages they had an idea similar to that. It led to people beating themselves with whips and chains. Does that sound very healthy to you?

 

[razzelflabben]

And where are you getting your source? Furthermore, what does 'to burn with desire' mean? Have you done a word study on the phrase?

really? we don't even know the meaning of lust now...websters...
2lust

verb
Definition of LUST

intransitive verb
: to have an intense desire or need : crave; specifically : to have a sexual urge

obsolete a : pleasure, delight b : personal inclination : wish
2
: usu. intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness

3
a : an intense longing : craving <a lust to succeed> b : enthusiasm, eagerness <admired his lust for life>

.learners-link div.learners-link-content { font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0pt 5px 0pt 22px; }.learners-link div.learners-link-content a .word { text-decoration: none; }.learners-link div.learners-link-content a:hover .word { color: rgb(83, 88, 169); text-decoration: underline; }#content .definition div.d .learners-link a, #content .definition div.d .learners-link a:hover, #content .definition div.d .learners-link a:link, #content .definition div.d .learners-link a:visited { color: black; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-variant: normal; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; } See lust defined for English-language learners

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/lust[1]

















Actually, something here does. See, it references adultery. Look at the context for it as well. Who is Jesus addressing? Single youths? No. Answer the questions. Here they are again:

What is lust? Why does Jesus only address lust towards those who are married? Why does Jesus only address lust in front of religious leaders, who would not have been single? What evidence do you have for your opinion?

no where in scripture does Jesus say that only married men lust or that only lust from married men is a sin...now if you want to try to prove that it does, I'd be happy to listen, but to try to make a case for it by claiming that you know that every man in the audience was married, is like claiming to, well be there and know every person there....not cool dude, that is just not a cool argument....but hey, fair is fair, lets look at the context of the passages presented. The context of Matt is found in verse 1 1 Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them.

Notice there is a crowd, not a crowd of married men, but a crowd...also notice that Jesus is teaching them, including the disciples, any guess how many of the disciples were married men?

Now lets look at the context of Job...I'm sure that context is important to you since you are trying to make a case for context allowing us to dismiss the passages...that being the case I'm sure that you will accept context, right? Job says in verse 1 that he made a covenant 1 “I made a covenant with my eyes
not to look lustfully at a young woman.
2 For what is our lot from God above,
our heritage from the Almighty on high?
3 Is it not ruin for the wicked,
disaster for those who do wrong?
4 Does he not see my ways
and count my every step?

He makes no specification as to when this covenant was made, so lets look further...notice all the things that are listed, how many of them are limited to marriage? Hum, so your claim is that context is important but only when context supports our desire to do what we want to do in the flesh?

Show that masturbation is sex, first of all, and secondly show this 'Scripture after Scripture' evidence you claim to have. I'd bet money that every single one of them is talking about sex with other people.

It would seem you missed the point I was making....you might want to try putting that sentence in context and see if you get a better understanding of what I am trying to say...remember, context is important to clear communication.

NRSV:
Job 31:9 "If my heart has been enticed by a woman, and I have lain in wait at my neighbor's door;
Job 31:10 then let my wife grind for another, and let other men kneel over her.
Job 31:11 For that would be a heinous crime; that would be a criminal offense;
Job 31:12 for that would be a fire consuming down to Abaddon, and it would burn to the root all my harvest.

Job is a married man. Plus, that verse isn't talking about lust. It's a different word entirely. But don't take my word for it.

It is talking about looking at a woman with desire, lust is burning desire and Job isn't even willing to desire, much less burn with desire, that should tell us something.

As to the context, show how the context is limited to marriage in that the list of things he presents are not limited to, or related to marriage, but rather to the responsibility of being set apart for God.

NAS with Strong's numbers:
Job 31:11 "For that would be a lustfulH2154 crimeH2154; Moreover, it would be an iniquityH5771 punishable by judgesH6414.

H2154
&#1494;&#1502;&#1468;&#1492; / &#1494;&#1502;&#1468;&#1492;
zimma&#770;h / zamma&#770;h
BDB Definition:
1) plan, device, wickedness, evil plan, mischievous purpose
1a) plan, purpose
1b) evil device, wickedness
1c) not chaste, incest, licentiousness, adultery, idolatry, harlotry
Part of Speech: verb

This isn't a thought, it is an action plan. Usually when people touch they don't plan to go have sex with whoever they think about- if indeed they're thinking about a real person.

see previous post I thought I was pretty clear in what I said, I realize that communication can be tricky sometimes but trying to apply others arguments to what I said doesn't help with clear communication, so try again, this time don't assume to know what I am saying based on what others have told you. Thanks

Where did I say that? I never said 'lust', which you still haven't defined, isn't a problem for everyone, I asked you a question about the context of the verse you cited, which you did not answer.

again, try reading it in context, it makes a lot more sense than when you try to take it out of context and read into it what is not there.

Show that erotic fantasy or masturbation leads to sin. You haven't shown that it leads to sin. Heck, you haven't even defined what lust is.

actually, lust is sin, which is what I said in context. Context would really help your communication dude.

Who are you to judge that? Are you God? You cited Matthew 5, and that's just peachy.

so now citing scriptural support is being a judge and preachy, sounds like the accusations of someone who is feeling guilty if you ask me...but you didn't ask, so we move on.

But I asked you several questions about it and all you've done is ranted on about how masturbating is a sin.

be careful, I never once said masturbating was a sin, in fact, what I said is quite different and if you actually read what I said, you might find some surprising things...and just for the record, I have answered every question I was asked, at least unless I missed an entire post somewhere that isn't showing up on my screen some how.

Ranting is not socially appropriate in a discussion when someone asks you a question.

well first, I have yet to rant on this topic and secondly, I have answered every question asked of me.

Typically when someone asks you a question it's polite to answer it.

which is why I am very careful to answer every question I am asked. Maybe your confusing me with someone else.

So can consuming food. Does that make consuming food a sin?

Gluttony is...

 

[Zebra1552]

really? we don't even know the meaning of lust now...websters...

You are using an English dictionary to define a word in the Bible. A word that was originally in another language. Why use an English dictionary for a word in another language? I'm quite aware of its real meaning, and it's hardly 'burning with passion' or plain desire. It is equivalent to coveting in the Old Testament, which has intent involved in the mix- not just a desire. If it were just desire, then married people would be sinning in any sexual desire they might have. Didn't you say you had a family?

no where in scripture does Jesus say that only married men lust or that only lust from married men is a sin..

Excuse me, but nowhere did I say that He did.

now if you want to try to prove that it does, I'd be happy to listen, but to try to make a case for it by claiming that you know that every man in the audience was married, is like claiming to, well be there and know every person there....not cool dude, that is just not a cool argument....

Do you know what a straw man argument is?

but hey, fair is fair, lets look at the context of the passages presented. The context of Matt is found in verse 1 1 Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them.

Notice there is a crowd, not a crowd of married men, but a crowd...also notice that Jesus is teaching them, including the disciples, any guess how many of the disciples were married men?

Was Jesus' message directed solely at the disciples? Of course not, or he'd not have gathered the crowds and taught them. So, then, who was Jesus speaking to?

Now lets look at the context of Job...I'm sure that context is important to you since you are trying to make a case for context allowing us to dismiss the passages...

You cited a passage that is not talking about lust. I'm merely pointing that out.

He makes no specification as to when this covenant was made, so lets look further...notice all the things that are listed, how many of them are limited to marriage? Hum, so your claim is that context is important but only when context supports our desire to do what we want to do in the flesh?

Another straw man argument. Context is ALWAYS important, which is why the verse you cited has nothing to do with this discussion. The context of the passage is good, but you need to dig a lot deeper than that to understand your Bible. Try figuring out the original language using at the very least lexicons and concordances. Once you do that, you will notice that not once is any Hebrew word for lust used.

H5691
&#1506;&#1490;&#1489;&#1492;
&#8219;a&#774;ga&#770;ba&#770;h
BDB Definition:
1) lustfulness
Part of Speech: noun feminine

That is one of the Hebrew words for lust, completely unrelated to this:

H2154
&#1494;&#1502;&#1468;&#1492; / &#1494;&#1502;&#1468;&#1492;
zimma&#770;h / zamma&#770;h
BDB Definition:
1) plan, device, wickedness, evil plan, mischievous purpose
1a) plan, purpose
1b) evil device, wickedness
1c) not chaste, incest, licentiousness, adultery, idolatry, harlotry
Part of Speech: verb

It would seem you missed the point I was making....you might want to try putting that sentence in context and see if you get a better understanding of what I am trying to say...remember, context is important to clear communication. It is talking about looking at a woman with desire, lust is burning desire and Job isn't even willing to desire, much less burn with desire, that should tell us something.

I understand the verse quite well. Job is talking about the fact that he hasn't coveting his neighbor's wife or even taken a concubine. He's testifying to his own defense that he had not once sinned in any adulterous way. It's not talking about desire anywhere in that passage. Here's a commentary to help you understand what you're citing:

Job 31:11
For this is an heinous crime - This expresses Job&#8217;s sense of the enormity of such an offence. He felt that there was no palliation for it; he would in no way, and on no pretence, attempt to vindicate it.
An iniquity to be punished by the judges - A crime for the judges to determine on and decide. The sins which Job had specified before this, were those of the heart; but here he refers to a crime against society - an offence which deserved the interposition of the magistrate. It may be observed here, that adultery has always been regarded as a sin &#8220;to be punished by the judges.&#8221; In most countries it has been punished with death; see the notes at Joh_8:5.

That's Barnes.

Job 31:11
For this is a heinous crime - Mr. Good translates,
&#8220;For this would be a premeditated crime,
And a profligacy of the understanding.&#8221;
See also Job_31:28. That is, It would not only be a sin against the individuals more particularly concerned, but a sin of the first magnitude against society; and one of which the civil magistrate should take particular cognizance, and punish as justice requires.

That's Clarke.

As to the context, show how the context is limited to marriage in that the list of things he presents are not limited to, or related to marriage, but rather to the responsibility of being set apart for God.

Actually, it is. Once again, read the chapter. Here's another commentary for you:

Job 31:9-15
Two more instances we have here of Job's integrity: -
I. That he had a very great abhorrence of the sin of adultery. As he did not wrong his own marriage bed by keeping a concubine (he did not so much as think upon a maid, v. 1), so he was careful not to offer any injury to his neighbour's marriage bed. Let us see here, 1. How clear he was from this sin, Job_31:9. (1.) He did not so much as covet his neighbour's wife; for even his heart was not deceived by a woman. The beauty of another man's wife did not kindle in him any unchaste desires, nor was he ever moved by the allurements of an adulterous woman, such as is described, Pro_7:6, etc. See the original of all the defilements of the life; they come from a deceived heart. Every sin is deceitful, and none more so than the sin of uncleanness. (2.) He never compassed or imagined any unchaste design. He never laid wait at his neighbour's door, to get an opportunity to debauch his wife in his absence, when the good man was not at home, Pro_7:19. See Job_24:15. 2. What a dread he had of this sin, and what frightful apprehensions he had concerning the malignity of it - that it was a heinous crime (Job_31:11), one of the greatest vilest sins a man can be guilty of, highly provoking to God, and destructive to the prosperity of the soul. With respect to the mischievousness of it, and the punishment it deserved, he owns that, if he were guilty of that heinous crime, (1.) His family might justly be made infamous in the highest degree (Job_31:10): Let my wife grind to another. Let her be a slave (so some), a harlot, so others. God often punishes the sins of one with the sin of another, the adultery of the husband with the adultery of the wife, as in David's case (2Sa_12:11), which does not in the least excuse the treachery of the adulterous wife; but, how unrighteous soever she is, God is righteous. See Hos_4:13, Your spouses shall commit adultery. Note, Those who are not just and faithful to their relations must not think it strange if their relations be unjust and unfaithful to them. (2.) He himself might justly be made a public example: For it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges; yea, though those who are guilty of it are themselves judges, as Job was. Note, Adultery is a crime which the civil magistrate ought to take cognizance of and punish: so it was adjudged even in the patriarchal age, before the law of Moses made it capital.

That's Matthew Henry.

see previous post I thought I was pretty clear in what I said, I realize that communication can be tricky sometimes but trying to apply others arguments to what I said doesn't help with clear communication, so try again, this time don't assume to know what I am saying based on what others have told you. Thanks

I quoted from Thayer's, which is an updated version of Strong's. I'm hardly using anyone else's arguments. I'm making my own to debunk your assessment of the passage.

actually, lust is sin, which is what I said in context. Context would really help your communication dude.

Show that masturbation contains lust, and define what lust is from the Bible.

so now citing scriptural support is being a judge and preachy, sounds like the accusations of someone who is feeling guilty if you ask me...but you didn't ask, so we move on.

You didn't cite Scripture. You stated:

thus, if one wishes to be without sin, it is wise to refrain from masturbation....

You presume one of either two things: Either masturbation is sin, or you cannot touch without sinning. Since it's not defined as sin anywhere in the Bible, you must be assuming the latter. You have given no Scripture to indicate that you cannot touch without sinning.

be careful, I never once said masturbating was a sin, in fact, what I said is quite different and if you actually read what I said, you might find some surprising things...

No, you just directly implied in this quote:

thus, if one wishes to be without sin, it is wise to refrain from masturbation....

that masturbation cannot be done without sin. Which means the same thing as 'masturbation is sinful'.

and just for the record, I have answered every question I was asked, at least unless I missed an entire post somewhere that isn't showing up on my screen some how.

I cited them in my first post to you and my second:

What is lust? Why does Jesus only address lust towards those who are married? Why does Jesus only address lust in front of religious leaders, who would not have been single? What evidence do you have for your opinion?

There are four questions there.

well first, I have yet to rant on this topic and secondly, I have answered every question asked of me.

See above. There are four questions there. You have only attempted to answer one of them, and that using an English dictionary for a Greek word.

which is why I am very careful to answer every question I am asked. Maybe your confusing me with someone else.

I am fully capable of reading your posts, miss.

Gluttony is...

That doesn't answer that question either.

 

[bliz]

So for most of us masturbation and "burning with passion" is the same thing. So we can look at what Paul says and interpret "it is better to marry than touch"

Speak for yourself. Who are these "most of us" you claim to be speaking for?

I'm having a hard time seeing the marriage relationship, sexual and otherwise, as a replacement? substitution? for masturbation.