Masturbation a Sin ? :confused:

[Duane1966]

I am sorry, I see nothing here pertaining to masturbation. I see self-mutilation for frivolous reasons.

So you are saying that Jesus is talking about self-mutilation in this passage, even though the context of the passage is not mutilation but sexual sins. Okaaaay.

By the way it is very strange that the communist party “borrowed” Jesus’ expression: “if you are not with us, then you are against us”. And verse 28 is what George Orwell described as “thought crime”. Isn’t it peculiar that the worst tyrannical systems are in agreement with Jesus?

This is terrible reasoning. So they borrowed a few verses. Guess what? They also partly borrowed from Gandhi, Buddha, Mohammed, Descartes, numerous atheists, and from other ideologies. I would wager that in part they would agree with something you believe in. I would find it peculiar if any form of government did not agree in part with what Jesus taught.

 

[Faithdancer]

There is major disrespect being displayed here toward the Church, the clergy, and most of all toward Jesus Christ.
Moderators, please!

 

[Ormond]

Let’s take a closer look at these passages, and at member’s relationship with them.

28 But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

29* If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.

30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.

Questions for those of you who feel lust and masterbation are sins.

1. Have you ever looked at someone not your spouse with lust? I’m going to guess all of you have at some point. So, did you tear your right eye out and throw it away? I’m going to guess not a single one of you have done so.
2. Have you ever masterbated? I’m going to guess at least most of you have at some point. So, did you cut off your hand and throw it away? I’m going to guess not a single one of you have done so.

If my guesses are correct, then we learn something useful about your relationship with the Bible. You’re reading it to mean what you want it to mean, and ignoring the words of Jesus whenever it suits you.

Personally, I’m not complaining about the fact that you are making the Bible up as you go along, and ignoring Jesus when ever it suits you. That’s your business. Again, this is not my complaint, or my business.

My complaint is when you use your own hypocrisy as a platform upon which to put vulnerable young people at war with their own bodies. You are asking them to meet a standard you yourself are unwilling to meet. And you are in good company in doing so.

Are we really supposed to believe that the clergy NEVER lust in their hearts? And when, please tell me, was the last time a member of the Catholic clergy ripped out their right eye, or cut off their right hand? Not in our lifetimes, right?

So here’s my suggestion. Don’t quote Bible verses that you yourself have no intention of honoring. Stop trying to play the role of pure Jesus loyalist when you yourself are content to simply ignore Jesus when his teachings are inconvenient.

Finally, another quote from Jesus…

“Lord, why have thou forsaken me?”

The point here is that Jesus at least in part human, and thus imperfect, capable of error.

 

[Ormond]

There is major disrespect being displayed here toward the Church, the clergy, and most of all toward Jesus Christ.
Moderators, please!

Jesus the God, and the 2,000 year old institution called the Catholic Church, do not need protection from you. You’re actually insulting them both, without intending to, by presuming this to be the case.

 

[Rau]

…All things in moderation is pretty good advice.

No, that would be shocking advice. “All good things in moderation” is good advice.

 

[Ormond]

No, that would be shocking advice. “All good things in moderation” is good advice.

Declaring oneself to be the definer of “good” is one of those not quite so good things it’s wise to pursue in moderation. Of course, I’m not wise myself, so it doesn’t apply to me obviously.

 

[Wesrock]

Let’s take a closer look at these passages, and at member’s relationship with them.

Questions for those of you who feel lust and masterbation are sins.

1. Have you ever looked at someone not your spouse with lust? I’m going to guess all of you have at some point. So, did you tear your right eye out and throw it away? I’m going to guess not a single one of you have done so.
2. Have you ever masterbated? I’m going to guess at least most of you have at some point. So, did you cut off your hand and throw it away? I’m going to guess not a single one of you have done so.

If my guesses are correct, then we learn something useful about your relationship with the Bible. You’re reading it to mean what you want it to mean, and ignoring the words of Jesus whenever it suits you.

Personally, I’m not complaining about the fact that you are making the Bible up as you go along, and ignoring Jesus when ever it suits you. That’s your business. Again, this is not my complaint, or my business.

My complaint is when you use your own hypocrisy as a platform upon which to put vulnerable young people at war with their own bodies. You are asking them to meet a standard you yourself are unwilling to meet. And you are in good company in doing so.

Are we really supposed to believe that the clergy NEVER lust in their hearts? And when, please tell me, was the last time a member of the Catholic clergy ripped out their right eye, or cut off their right hand? Not in our lifetimes, right?

So here’s my suggestion. Don’t quote Bible verses that you yourself have no intention of honoring. Stop trying to play the role of pure Jesus loyalist when you yourself are content to simply ignore Jesus when his teachings are inconvenient.

Finally, another quote from Jesus…

“Lord, why have thou forsaken me?”

The point here is that Jesus at least in part human, and thus imperfect, capable of error.

Please learn the definition of hyperbole. Okay? Thanks. It’s how the Church has consistently taught regarding the plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand.

 

[Duane1966]

Let’s take a closer look at these passages, and at member’s relationship with them.

Questions for those of you who feel lust and masterbation are sins.

1. Have you ever looked at someone not your spouse with lust? I’m going to guess all of you have at some point. So, did you tear your right eye out and throw it away? I’m going to guess not a single one of you have done so.
2. Have you ever masterbated? I’m going to guess at least most of you have at some point. So, did you cut off your hand and throw it away? I’m going to guess not a single one of you have done so.

If my guesses are correct, then we learn something useful about your relationship with the Bible. You’re reading it to mean what you want it to mean, and ignoring the words of Jesus whenever it suits you.

Ummm, no. It means you don’t understand Jesus’ use of hyperbole.

Personally, I’m not complaining about the fact that you are making the Bible up as you go along, and ignoring Jesus when ever it suits you. That’s your business. Again, this is not my complaint, or my business.

My complaint is when you use your own hypocrisy as a platform upon which to put vulnerable young people at war with their own bodies. You are asking them to meet a standard you yourself are unwilling to meet. And you are in good company in doing so.

So not engaging in masturbation is war with your own body? That’s an insane comment.

Are we really supposed to believe that the clergy NEVER lust in their hearts? And when, please tell me, was the last time a member of the Catholic clergy ripped out their right eye, or cut off their right hand? Not in our lifetimes, right?

No one has suggested that the clergy never lust. Again, Jesus is using hyperbole, a concept you don’t seem to understand.

So here’s my suggestion. Don’t quote Bible verses that you yourself have no intention of honoring. Stop trying to play the role of pure Jesus loyalist when you yourself are content to simply ignore Jesus when his teachings are inconvenient.

And here’s my suggestion to you. Get mental help fast. You cannot read another person’s heart. You have no idea what any of the people who have posted on this forum’s intentions are.

Finally, another quote from Jesus…

“Lord, why have thou forsaken me?”

The point here is that Jesus at least in part human, and thus imperfect, capable of error.

Please, you have proven your insanity enough. Stop. My sides hurt from laughing so much at your posts.

 

[Ormond]

Please learn the definition of hyperbole. Okay? Thanks. It’s how the Church has consistently taught regarding the plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand.

Ah, I see now, so we can interpret the words of Jesus any way we wish and don’t have to take anything he said literally. Good to know!

Let me write this down to make sure I’ve got it.

1. Jesus didn’t actually mention masterbation, but we should read in to his words that he did.
2. Jesus did specifically and explicitly mention cutting off the right hand, but that’s hyperbole so we can ignore it.
3. Everyone is free to read the Bible any they want to make any case that pleases them.

When I read those passages, what I hear Jesus saying is that me investing this much time in such an entirely silly subject makes me just as crazy as any of you, thus we are brothers. Now THAT I can agree with!

 

[Wesrock]

Ah, I see now, so we can interpret the words of Jesus any way we wish and don’t have to take anything he said literally. Good to know!

Let me write this down to make sure I’ve got it.

1. Jesus didn’t actually mention masterbation, but we should read in to his words that he did.
2. Jesus did specifically and explicitly mention cutting off the right hand, but that’s hyperbole so we can ignore it.
3. Everyone is free to read the Bible any they want to make any case that pleases them.

When I read those passages, what I hear Jesus saying is that me investing this much time in such an entirely silly subject makes me just as crazy as any of you, thus we are brothers. Now THAT I can agree with!

If I can’t say anything nice…

The Bible should be read according to the Traditions and authoritative intepretation of the Church. It should be read in context. It should be read and contemplated.

 

[Wesrock]

Another use of hyperbole:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

And I suppose Jesus was being literal when he stated “When you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matt. 6:3)?

Regardless, the Church’s position on masturbation doesn’t have its foundation on Matthew 5:30 being a reference to masturbation. It doesn’t rise or fall on that connection.

 

[Ormond]

IThe Bible should be read according to the Traditions and authoritative intepretation of the Church.

Why bother having a God given brain then?

Again, members and The Church are reading the Bible the way they want to read it in regards to this question, which pulls the plug on your credibility in regards to this particular issue. Explicit statements by Jesus are completely ignored, while unclear references are interpreted according to the reader’s preference, and then declared the word of God.

Let me rush to add I have no complaint with this at all if it remains a private matter. If anyone wishes to think that the creator of all reality is sitting around heaven with a clipboard keeping track of which human beings masterbate when, well, it’s your brain to do with as you wish.

I also have no complaint with anyone who chooses not to masterbate for whatever reason by the same logic, your body, your business.

1. My first complaint is that those who sell such a doctrine are creating a tidal wave of completely unnecessary suffering in a world which already contains way more than enough unavoidable suffering. It’s cruel to the point of unhuman to put so many people at war with their own minds and bodies based on such thoroughly flimsy evidence.
2. My second complaint is that labeling such a trivial matter as masterbation as a serious sin devalues the impact such a label can and should have on far more serious matters. After all, if masterbation is going to send me to hell for eternity, I might as well go ahead and commit genocide given that they appear to be the moral equivalent in the eyes of the Church. What have I got to lose, I’m going to hell anyway, right?
3. My third complaint is that the Church has no business lecturing anybody about any sexual matter until it gets it’s own house in order. Priests have been raping children all over the world, and the Church has been very busy trying to sweep it all under the rug, thus endangering even more children. Given all this, where in the world does the Church find the nerve to lecture some 16 year old kid about what he or she does by themselves in the privacy of their own home??? The Church is violently against abortion, and contraception too? Incoherent incompetence!
4. My final complaint is that I have clearly totally lost my mind in taking you guys seriously about any of this rubbish, and what is the Church doing about that?? Nothing! My wife is rolling her eyes at me again, no wait, now she’s fallen to the floor in a fit of hysterical laughter. Now she’s lost her mind too, and still the Church sits on it’s hands!!! Scandal!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If I can’t say anything nice…

The Bible should be read according to the Traditions and authoritative intepretation of the Church. It should be read in context. It should be read and contemplated.

And we are back to the question: “Where IS the official and exhaustive interpretation of the Bible? Chapter by chapter, verse by verse?” Without such a guide you are always ready to do the hide and seek game. Never admitting the reality of a critical voice, always trying the evasion-trick of “But that particular verse is just an allegory, or a hyperbole”. What is the actual meaning of the allegories? What kind of actual events are behind them? And, of course the “context”? Which parts of the other texts are counted as valid “context”?

Let’s see. Is the verse Luke 19:27 allegorical/hyperbolical or literal? “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” Does Jesus speak of a human tyrant, who wants to exterminate all his “enemies”? Or does he speak about God, who orders that ALL the non-Christian must be slaughtered, from the pagans, the non-Christian believers all the way to the atheists? The Bible is choke-full of verses which consider the simple lack of belief to be a mortal sin.

 

[mVitus]

Sure. Matthew 5.

And there is verse 30, right there where he is teaching on sins pertaining to sex… Quite clear. That’s why Catholics are taught to get the true meaning of a verse, read the ten verses before, and the ten after.

In regards to that verse, I disagree it talks about maatrubation. First He mentions keeping a pure heart and then keeping away temptation. I understand ‘tear out your eye’ and ‘cut off your hand’ as saying to get rid of those things in your life that cause one to sin, not as saying mastrubation is sinful. (Though I do agree with the Church overall on the matter.) If you’re going to use a verse, that verse us a weak example.

 

[DeniseNY]

There is major disrespect being displayed here toward the Church, the clergy, and most of all toward Jesus Christ.
Moderators, please!

Use the report feature.

 

[Vonsalza]

And we are back to the question: “Where IS the official and exhaustive interpretation of the Bible? Chapter by chapter, verse by verse?”…

We don’t have a single, authoritative interpretation of the American Constitution. Are you suggesting that any text without clear, universal and uncontested meaning should be thrown-away?

More troubling still is the problem that you’re telling people that Christianity arises from the individual interpretation of scripture. This is not held to be true by most here, and thus requires proofing (a la this is a Catholic website).
Catholics, the Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans (so 80% or so of Christians) will argue scripture is a by-product of the priesthood of the Church. The Church is the only thing that can authoritatively interpret it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Why bother having a God given brain then?

I tried to rationalize that same point with a cop when he ticketed me for running a very poorly placed stop sign. No dice.

Again, members and The Church are reading the Bible the way they want

In matters that are infallibly decided, this is incorrect. In matters that aren’t, this isn’t - which is good.

Let me rush to add I have no complaint with this at all if it remains a private matter.

So people shouldn’t have a right to advocate their view when they agree with the Church?

1. It’s cruel to the point of unhuman to put so many people at war with their own minds and bodies based on such thoroughly flimsy evidence.

Morality as an objective concept is not able to be proofed with evidence. There’s no objective proof that anything is “wrong” because “wrong” is not existentially proven.

1. …if masterbation is going to send me to hell for eternity, I might as well go ahead and commit genocide given that they appear to be the moral equivalent in the eyes of the Church…

Please refer to the concept of “Penance” within the Church and let us know if you think penance would be the same for genocide and masturbation. They are not morally equivalent to the Church - as a point of fact.

1. My third complaint is that the Church has no business lecturing anybody about any sexual matter until it gets it’s own house in order.

The “Idea of the Church” has always been perfect while the “Priests of the Church” virtually never have been. While I do no defend those priests in their heinous actions, I do defend the Church in that “The Church” (the idea) and those men (the man) are two separate things per Aristotle.

1. My final complaint is that I have clearly totally lost my mind in taking you guys seriously about any of this rubbish, and what is the Church doing about that?? Nothing!

Sadly, it’s not her job to convince you. It’s her job to proclaim her truth. If you respond, great! If you don’t, such is your will. It should not be encumbered.

On the topic, we now live in a world where you can’t have sex until you’re married and you shouldn’t get married until you’re “established”. This generally occurs well after our bodies begin to cry out for sex in our early teens.

Treat people with love and compassion and leave their sins between them, their confessor and God.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

We don’t have a single, authoritative interpretation of the American Constitution.

Apples and oranges. The constitution is NOT a divinely “inspired” and unchanging word of God.

More troubling still is the problem that you’re telling people that Christianity arises from the individual interpretation of scripture.

Nope, I say something different. I say that everyone reserves the right to interpret the Bible according to their whim, SINCE the church does not do it. (Of course, why should anyone who is not catholic be expected to accept the church as authority is beyond comprehension. Especially since a sizable percentage (maybe even the majority) of the Catholics disagrees with the church on major issues, like sex, contraception, etc. How can you hope to convince (evangelize!) the rest, when you are unable to convince your own brethren.

This is not held to be true by most here, and thus requires proofing (a la this is a Catholic website).
Catholics, the Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans (so 80% or so of Christians) will argue scripture is a by-product of the priesthood of the Church. The Church is the only thing that can authoritatively interpret it.

But it does not. What is the “authoritative” interpretation of Luke 19:27?

Sadly, it’s not her job to convince you.

Ah, so the church is not supposed to spread the “good news” any more?

 

[Duane1966]

In regards to that verse, I disagree it talks about maatrubation. First He mentions keeping a pure heart and then keeping away temptation. I understand ‘tear out your eye’ and ‘cut off your hand’ as saying to get rid of those things in your life that cause one to sin, not as saying mastrubation is sinful. (Though I do agree with the Church overall on the matter.) If you’re going to use a verse, that verse us a weak example.

Jesus’ teachings almost always have multiple levels. But you find it weak because you do not know Judaism, of which Jesus was a member. The Jews of His time would have clearly seen it as Jesus referring to masturbation. Jesus even used the exact same cut off language that was part of the Oral Torah’s condemnation of masturbation. Here is an article that lays out the background. Taken from here: pagadiandiocese.org/2016/01/19/masturbation-reference-in-sermon-on-the-mount/

I ran across this argument today in an article bristling with insight, by a Messianic Jew, Reb Yhoshua, entitled, The Oral Torah and the Messianic Jew. In my resulting paper, “Biblical Evidence for the Oral Torah (Hence, by Analogy, Oral Apostolic Tradition)”, I noted (from the article) that his teaching on visual lust and on prayer (in the Sermon on the Mount)** look to be almost direct citations,** or at least strong reflections of the thought, of portions of the Talmud, which was an encapsulation of Jewish traditions: much of which were believed to have been passed down as oral Torah: initially received by Moses on Mt. Sinai, along with the written law.

**In the same passage on lust, where a “hand” causing trouble is mentioned, Reb Yhoshua noted that this may very well hearken back to a talmudic injunction that was clearly about masturbation. **First, let’s look at the passage (RSV):

Matthew 5:28-30* But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [29] If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.*
​

It had never occurred to me in 34 years of committed Christianity, and seeing this passage countless times, to see an indication of masturbation here, but now that someone suggests it, it makes perfect sense. Context is everything. Verse 30 (so I had thought) was moving onto another subject matter (hence I made no connection).

**But now it seems more sensible that the topic remains within the general subject of sexuality and marriage, since Jesus continues after this, discussing divorce in the following two verses. A “flow” of 1) lust / adultery, 2) some kind of (unspecified) sin with the hand, and 3) marriage and divorce, doesn’t make much sense. What sin with the hand? What would Jesus mean? But the second of three prohibitions referring to masturbation does seem a great deal more plausible in context. Jewish traditional background makes the merely plausible become quite likely. **Reb Yhoshua comments (footnote incorporated):

*Some, understanding that vv. 27-30 are all teachings on lust, have suggested Jesus condoned castration. Origen, for example, castrated himself to fulfill Jesus’ command.. . . Jesus certainly didn’t mean for his followers to emasculate themselves. G-d forbade the Israelites to subject even their animals to painful castration. (Lev. 22:24) Mention of cutting off one’s hand within the context of a teaching on lustful thoughts and improper glances was simply a quote from the oral Torah, “The hand that frequently touches [the genitals]…in the case of a man, should be cut off.” [Mishnah Nidah 2:1] Jesus was using the same hyperbole with his audience that G-d used with Moses to communicate the sinfulness of masturbation. It is extremely unlikely that he ever intended for any kind of amputation to take place.*

An article on “Kosher Sex” at the Judaism 101 website confirms this:

*Jewish law clearly prohibits male masturbation. . . . Jewish law . . . forbids any act of ha-sh’cha’tat zerah (destruction of the seed), that is, ejaculation outside of the vagina. In fact, the prohibition is so strict that one passage in the Talmud states, **“in the case of a man, the hand that reaches below the navel should be chopped off.” (Niddah 13a)....

---

With this previous Talmudic terminology and tradition brought to bear on the subject, not just of a hand “cut off” but also a tie-in of masturbation as a species of adultery absolutely forbidden,** it seems clear that Matthew 5:30 was referring to masturbation. Thus, Jesus condemned it in no uncertain terms (virtually making it a variant of the adultery prohibited in the Ten Commandments), while not suggesting a literal amputation (since it was understood in the culture as hyperbole). **The strong hyperbolic visual was the ancient Jewish literary way of expressing the thought, “this is really really bad and immoral. Don’t do it!”

 

[Faithdancer]

For those who would try to convince others that sin is not sin, or would deliberately try to persuade others to commit sinful acts–all the rest of us can do is pray. Pray for their repentance and conversion, pray for own strength and our deliverance from evil:
*St. Michael the Archangel, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil…Amen. *