My cousin developed prostate problems from stopping masturbating

[LilyM]

I think there is a fine line between murder and masturbation. Btw, I hope I’m not offending people on here. This is just something that has been on my heart for a long, long time now. And when my cousin’s issue happened, it affected my faith in that area.

Why would God allow that to happen to my cousin, when he was just doing his best to abide by his way, you know? Granted God blessed the world with medicine, but his issue could be solved without him harming anyone.

I attend a non denomination church. I believe as long as anyone truly accepts Christ in their heart, is saved. Maybe one denomination has it more right than the other, but we’ll all know that someday.

From talking with my priest about the issue, he admires that I try to stop. He tells me God will grant me serenity in that area of my life, if it’s something I really can’t control.

He also mention that back in the day, people were getting married at 13-14 years old, and that’s the age where people usually start masturbating, and therefore prostate issues weren’t really an issue then.

Trust me, if I could get married when I was that age, to have sex and avoid the guilt, I would have, but with the way society is today, I certainly couldn’t raise kids properly at that age. It would be unfair to them.

He says God understand’s times are changing. Things that weren’t illegal back then, are now illegal. Like a 20 year old man marrying a 13 year old girl. The Bible also teaches it is a sin to wear fabrics with mixed colors, which clearly isn’t an issue today, and a lot of people aren’t even aware the Bible teaches that.

My priest also mentioned that I shouldn’t take things too literally in the Bible. He says it’s okay to look at a woman and admire her beauty and figure. God made men to be attracted to women and to be glad I don’t look at men that way. He says, when it festers in your brain, and you fantasies get out of control, like I were to rape the woman, is when it becomes a sin. Or if I were to fantasize about women so much, that I went into porn or became a sex addict. It can lead to dangers, like STD’s.

Simply put - why would Jesus equate lustful thoughts with adultery (as He did do) if it were only action that were the problem? Sinful acts begin with sinful thoughts, and these need to be nipped in the bud.

If it is a sin to have sex with women you are not married to, rest assured it is a sin to dwell on thoughts of having sex with women you are not married to as well!

Yes, humans as a species are designed to be sexually attracted to each other. In the same manner we are designed to find food pleasing, as it is a necessity for us to eat.

But what would you say if I were, say, a diabetic forbidden sweet foods? Would you tell me that dreaming about chocolate and ice cream all day is the best way to help me to get over these cravings for sugar and will inspire me to eat healthily? Of course not.

Would you instead tell me to try to put out of my head fantasies of foods that I cannot eat without injury to my health? That it would be easier for me in the long run, and the cravings would die down, if I did not dwell on thoughts of that which was forbidden me? If you were sensible you would.

There is no sin or wrong in those thoughts that spring into your mind unbidden (and they do for all of us from time to time). There IS sin in deliberately and consciously dwelling on and entertaining those thoughts rather than choosing (and you can choose) to turn away from them and find other more useful and noble things to occupy your time and your mind with.

 

[bnt1988]

Simply put - why would Jesus equate lustful thoughts with adultery (as He did do) if it were only action that were the problem? Sinful acts begin with sinful thoughts, and these need to be nipped in the bud.

If it is a sin to have sex with women you are not married to, rest assured it is a sin to dwell on thoughts of having sex with women you are not married to as well!

Yes, humans as a species are designed to be sexually attracted to each other. In the same manner we are designed to find food pleasing, as it is a necessity for us to eat.

But what would you say if I were, say, a diabetic forbidden sweet foods? Would you tell me that dreaming about chocolate and ice cream all day is the best way to help me to get over these cravings for sugar and will inspire me to eat healthily? Of course not.

Would you instead tell me to try to put out of my head fantasies of foods that I cannot eat without injury to my health? That it would be easier for me in the long run, and the cravings would die down, if I did not dwell on thoughts of that which was forbidden me? If you were sensible you would.

There is no sin or wrong in those thoughts that spring into your mind unbidden (and they do for all of us from time to time). There IS sin in deliberately and consciously dwelling on and entertaining those thoughts rather than choosing (and you can choose) to turn away from them and find other more useful and noble things to occupy your time and your mind with.

But if you’re a diabetic and you eat sweets it’s harming your health, if you don’t masturbate, it harms your prostate, but if you masturbate it keeps it in good health.

What if a poor person couldn’t afford medication for that issue?

 

[LilyM]

But if you’re a diabetic and you eat sweets it’s harming your health, if you don’t masturbate, it harms your prostate, but if you masturbate it keeps it in good health.

What if a poor person couldn’t afford medication for that issue?

‘What profit if a man gain the whole world but lose his soul?’ ‘He who loves his life will lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake will find it’.

God will never abandon those who abide by His law, even if doing what is right for their soul puts temporary and lesser goods such as health, wealth or status at risk.

 

[atheistgirl]

That Doctor has fallen for typical liberal propaganda.
:tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk:

Are you sure

There are studies that show for men over 50, masturbation may have a positive effect on the health of the prostate.

Sarah x

 

[TrueLight]

Cresscent,

I am not so sure I would call this a lie. See here.

Julia agrees and then says why she agrees.

Julia knows a man. This can be assumed to be true. He may have lost one of his testicles and that also may be true. Now the reason is in question. If Julia was told by the man that the reason was for not masturbating then this is just misinformation and Julia, says she is a scientist, should question this and get more information. This is just information by testimony that is translated as fact and it is not. So this is not necessarily a lie.

Julia pulls this out of nowhere unless you read all of Julia’s postings and she that Julia is Liberal in thinking and does not think or post in line with the Magesterium. It is an unrelated statement that Julia has thrown out because she opposes Church teaching. Any knowledgeable Catholic should ignore any of Julia’s propositions that oppose Church teaching and recognize that this is just Julia’s opinion and not anything that will lead to avoid sin and gain salvation.

I was actually quite shocked at her statement. I knew she was liberal, but I didn’t know she outright opposed Church teaching.

 

[LilyM]

Are you sure

There are studies that show for men over 50, masturbation may have a positive effect on the health of the prostate.

Sarah x

And if bathing in the blood of freshly killed 2-year-old boys was found to have a positive effect on some aspect or other of human heath (and it wouldn’t surprise me if it does) would that make it fine and dandy to kill 2-year-old boys?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Since we have ventured into masterbation and prostate, what is the actual relationship between no sex/masterbation and prostate issues such as cancer etc. for the young male and older male? I’ve never heard a Dr mention masterbation as a cure for anything prostate.

What is is medical concensus on this if there is one?

 

[atheistgirl]

And if bathing in the blood of freshly killed 2-year-old boys was found to have a positive effect on some aspect or other of human heath (and it wouldn’t surprise me if it does) would that make it fine and dandy to kill 2-year-old boys?

Are there any studies that have shown freshly killed 2 year old boys blood has a beneficial effect on human health? If not, it just sounds like hysterical ranting - especially the idea of equating murder of infants with masturbation.

However, there are studies that have shown there may be some positive health benefits to men over the age of 50, who masturbate.

I recognize of course the Catholic position on masturbation.

And I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church won’t ever change it’s position on masturbation.

But were such health benefits to the over 50s to be established beyond dispute, it would bring up some interesting questions, hinted at by Linus.

Sarah x

 

[LilyM]

Are there any studies that have shown freshly killed 2 year old boys blood has a beneficial effect on human health? If not, it just sounds like hysterical ranting - especially the idea of equating murder of infants with masturbation.

However, there are studies that have shown there may be some positive health benefits to men over the age of 50, who masturbate.

I recognize of course the Catholic position on masturbation.

And I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church won’t ever change it’s position on masturbation.

But were such health benefits to the over 50s to be established beyond dispute, it would bring up some interesting questions, hinted at by Linus.

Sarah x

What I’m asking, via a perhaps clumsy hypothetical, is whether in your view the bare fact that a practice has health benefits in itself justifies or partially justifies indulging in said practice even in cases where the practice is morally or ethically repugnant.

 

[bnt1988]

And if bathing in the blood of freshly killed 2-year-old boys was found to have a positive effect on some aspect or other of human heath (and it wouldn’t surprise me if it does) would that make it fine and dandy to kill 2-year-old boys?

That’s a bit exaggerated don’t you think? There are studies that masturbation is good for the prostate. Google it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

However, there are studies that have shown there may be some positive health benefits to men over the age of 50, who masturbate.

But were such health benefits to the over 50s to be established beyond dispute, it would bring up some interesting questions, hinted at by Linus.

Sarah x

Right,

I believe similar studies suggest that no masterbation has also shown positive indicators for young adult males?

 

[bnt1988]

Since we have ventured into masterbation and prostate, what is the actual relationship between no sex/masterbation and prostate issues such as cancer etc. for the young male and older male? I’ve never heard a Dr mention masterbation as a cure for anything prostate.

What is is medical concensus on this if there is one?

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,401722,00.html

That’s just one of the many articles you can find by just google-ing it.

 

[bnt1988]

Right,

I believe similar studies suggest that no masterbation has also shown positive indicators for young adult males?

So is it okay for a 50 year old single man to do it?

 

[ValPal]

And if bathing in the blood of freshly killed 2-year-old boys was found to have a positive effect on some aspect or other of human heath (and it wouldn’t surprise me if it does) would that make it fine and dandy to kill 2-year-old boys?

Seriously, it’s posts like this where I question my sanity by coming on this forum. One has nothing to do with the other, and it simply discredits one argument.

FWIW, masturbation is defined as follows (CCC #2353):

By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.

The very specific wording of this definition leaves open the possibility that stimulation of the sexual organs might be permitted for non-pleasure reasons; e.g., medical reasons. Of course, the Church does not appear to allow that circumstance.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I think there is a fine line between murder and masturbation. …

…Why would God allow that to happen to my cousin…

We live in a fallen world.

…I attend a non denomination church. I believe as long as anyone truly accepts Christ in their heart, is saved. …

That belief is something I will never understand. Basically, it sounds like it means that as long as one accepts Christ as his or her Savior, one can sin all one chooses want and it doesn’t matter at all because he or she is saved from sin despite sinning right and left.

…From talking with my priest about the issue, …

I didn’t know that non-denominational churches had priests.

…He also mention that back in the day, people were getting married at 13-14 years old, and that’s the age where people usually start masturbating, and therefore prostate issues weren’t really an issue then. …

Prostate issues still aren’t issues for 13-14 year olds.

…Trust me, if I could get married when I was that age, to have sex and avoid the guilt, I would have, …

Really? You would have married at 13-14 to have sex and avoid guilt if you could? I guess the problem is that you, to borrow your words, haven’t had enough “luck with the ladies” to allow that?

…He says God understand’s times are changing. …

Times may change and people do accept sin as just fine, but God and His Church will not.

…He says, when it festers in your brain, and you fantasies get out of control, like I were to rape the woman, is when it becomes a sin. …

Hmm. Just hmm.

This thread has taken yet another turn toward the odd. I’m out.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s another

google.com/url?q=http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20090127/masturbation-and-prostate-cancer-risk&sa=U&ei=dzWFUL_vN8a40AGSsoDoCg&ved=0CBQQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEyWV4A0auKcH0ZiQ2v5bb7P04itQ

Seems by his closing statement research is far from over.

 

[LilyM]

That’s a bit exaggerated don’t you think? There are studies that masturbation is good for the prostate. Google it.

I don’t care if scientists are all agreed that it is the most wonderful thing in the world for your prostate. God doesn’t care about your prostate. Your prostate means next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.

He cares about your immortal soul. THAT means something.

Since when is your prostate so important that you are justified in sinning to retain it? Does the quote I posted - ‘what profit if a man gain the whole world but lose his soul’ - mean something different in your universe - something closer to ‘what profit if a man gain eternal life but lose his prostate’?

What do you think Our Lord’s admonition to cut off our hand or pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin means if not that there are some things more important than our lousy corruptible festering bodies!

 

[bnt1988]

We live in a fallen world.

That belief is something I will never understand. Basically, it sounds like it means that as long as one accepts Christ as his or her Savior, they can sin all they want and it doesn’t matter at all because he or she is saved from sin despite sinning right and left.

I didn’t know that non-denominational churches had priests.

Prostate issues still aren’t issues for 13-14 year olds.

Really? You would have married at 13-14 to have sex and avoid guilt if you could? I guess the problem is that you, to borrow your words, haven’t had enough “luck with the ladies” to allow that?

Times may change and people do accept sin as just fine, but God and His Church will not.

Hmm. Just hmm.

This thread has taken yet another turn toward the odd. I’m out.

If I was 13-14 and got married, when I got in my mid 20’s, I wouldn’t have to worry about prostate problems like my cousin, because I wouldn’t have to masturbate since I had a wife.

Are you saying that people that are sinners can’t accept Christ and be forgiven? Because Christ says they can.

I meant to say preacher. Sorry. I looked up the definition. Until just now, I thought, priest, pastor, and preacher were the same thing.

 

[atheistgirl]

What I’m asking, via a perhaps clumsy hypothetical, is whether in your view the bare fact that a practice has health benefits in itself justifies or partially justifies indulging in said practice even in cases where the practice is morally or ethically repugnant.

That’s a great question.

I’m trying to think of things that have obvious health benefits to the individual that if engaged in, would be harmful to others or themselves - something that would be morally or ethically repugnant.

I can’t think of any right now.

I’m thinking of things like eating healthy and well, taking regular exercise, going for regular medical and dental checkups, spending time with family and friends, working, enjoying hobbies, having a good sex life (married heterosexual couples only, no one else need apply )

I can’t think of anything that is morally or ethically repugnant, that also has health benefits.

I’m leaving out here things like drug cheats in cycling for example. While doping up to the eyeballs might convey a short term advantage, and boost ‘‘health’’ it’s not actually healthy, and is cheating, which is repugnant.

I’m trying to think of ordinary things the average woman on the street would understand as healthy, and I honestly can’t think of anything that is both healthy, and morally repugnant.

If, after further studies, there is shown a clear link between masturbation and the health of the prostate in men over 50, as clear as the link between smoking and cancer, in just the same was as one would be a fool to ignore the evidence on smoking, one would be equally foolish to ignore the medical evidence on the health benefits of masturbation for certain men of a certain age.

What the Church and the faithful does with this, is, of course, up to them.

But my answer is, if a man over 50 has solid evidence from the science and health community that masturbation may help prevent cancer and other complications of the prostate, he would be foolish to ignore this medical advice, in the same way as he would be foolish to continue to smoke, in light of the medical evidence.

But it’s an individual choice at then end of the day. Such a man may happily ignore such medical advice, if it goes against his beliefs, in the same way such a man may continue to smoke.

Sarah x

 

[bnt1988]

I don’t care if scientists are all agreed that it is the most wonderful thing in the world for your prostate. God doesn’t care about your miserable prostate. Your prostate means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

He cares about your immortal soul. Since when is your prostate so important that you are justified in sinning to retain it? Does the quote I posted - ‘what profit if a man gain the whole world but lose his soul’ - mean something different in your universe - something close to ‘what profit if a man gain eternal life but lose his prostate’?

What do you think Our Lord’s admonition to cut off our hand or pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin means if not that there are some things more important than our lousy corruptible festering bodies!

Well how many people out there, are literally plucking out our eyes and cutting of their hands because of their sins? That’s what I meant about my preacher saying to not take things too literally. If everyone did, we would all be blind and could hold anything.

And who are you to say that God doesn’t care about one’s prostate?

And you said miserable at that. God doesn’t care if one is miserable?

My cousin is a good, loving, caring person. He’s in church every Wednesday, and Sunday. Never cusses, never lies, always volunteering.

Yet, God doesn’t care that he was in excruciating pain.

That’s what I got from that.