...unless it hurts someone else

[HelenRose]

You could say the same thing about going to a ball game, or playing Dungeons and Dragons, or pretty much anything else. I really doubt that you would advocate “prayer” as a generic panacea for all the evils of the world.

That is simply not true. Masturbation is a short term fun, it cannot be done for more than a few minutes… definitely not for boys, who need time to produce more “ammunition”. But girls also can masturbate, and their body will “shut down” after a certain time.

The act itself is physiologically beneficial. Of course everything that is done in excess is harmful. Even prayer.

Whatever! I am not going to argue with you about the advantages of playing with one’s self.

 

[St_Francis]

You could say the same thing about going to a ball game, or playing Dungeons and Dragons, or pretty much anything else. I really doubt that you would advocate “prayer” as a generic panacea for all the evils of the world.

That is simply not true. Masturbation is a short term fun, it cannot be done for more than a few minutes… definitely not for boys, who need time to produce more “ammunition”. But girls also can masturbate, and their body will “shut down” after a certain time.

The act itself is physiologically beneficial. Of course everything that is done in excess is harmful. Even prayer.

If nothing else, masturbation is harmful to one’s future spouse, who will be compared to fantasies and previous experience. It also harms the ability of those who engage in the act to refrain from that type of pleasure when appropriate.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If nothing else, masturbation is harmful to one’s future spouse, who will be compared to fantasies and previous experience. It also harms the ability of those who engage in the act to refrain from that type of pleasure when appropriate.

Why do you think that the spouse does not come out as winner from the comparison? Why would one marry someone who is not superior when compared to all the previous encounters?

And why should one “refrain” from such activities, when it does not hurt anyone? Imagine that the couple is separated for some time, when one of them is on a long time job related assignment. Due to the technology they can stay connected via Skype, for example, and get stimulated by each other’s participation. A much better solution than being frustrated from the lack of physical pleasure - even if it is inferior when compared to the real McCoy? Most of sexual pleasure comes from the mind anyhow…

 

[St_Francis]

Why do you think that the spouse does not come out as winner from the comparison? Why would one marry someone who is not superior when compared to all the previous encounters?

Because it is the nature of humans to fantasize perfection and none of us is perfect.

And why should one “refrain” from such activities, when it does not hurt anyone?

First, it hurts the person doing it. Like greed, lust can grow in a person and cause a lot of difficulty. If nothing else, it spoils the body as if it were a child, so the body cries out for comfort, and in this way weakens the will.

In a not inconsiderable number of people, it leads to greater and greater desire, causing addictions to porn and the like.

Imagine that the couple is separated for some time, when one of them is on a long time job related assignment. Due to the technology they can stay connected via Skype, for example, and get stimulated by each other’s participation. A much better solution than being frustrated from the lack of physical pleasure - even if it is inferior when compared to the real McCoy? Most of sexual pleasure comes from the mind anyhow…

Lack of sex never killed anyone, sheesh. Whatever happening to maximizing the pleasure for both by both waiting until they are together?

ETA: why take something that was designed or evolved to strengthen the union between two people and use it to weaken that union?

 

[Dorothy]

Why do you think that the spouse does not come out as winner from the comparison? Why would one marry someone who is not superior when compared to all the previous encounters?

And why should one “refrain” from such activities, when it does not hurt anyone? Imagine that the couple is separated for some time, when one of them is on a long time job related assignment. Due to the technology they can stay connected via Skype, for example, and get stimulated by each other’s participation. A much better solution than being frustrated from the lack of physical pleasure - even if it is inferior when compared to the real McCoy? Most of sexual pleasure comes from the mind anyhow…

The correct Catholic response when a person is distanced from his/her spouse, is prayer and the sacraments given by our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Gorgias]

No, it is not “more likely”.

Are you a Monty Python fan? This thread began with with a chain of insults in the OP, and has descended into mere contradiction.

This is still a far cry form your “every sin affects everyone”.

I suspect that it’s a far cry from your misunderstanding of what I meant by that statement, since you still seem to be asking me to defend a claim I didn’t make (that is, that there’s a direct and immediate effect). I can’t defend a claim that you’re making in error. Sorry.

Of course in your worldview masturbation is also a mortal sin… and it harms no one.

According to you, it harms no one.

Research has shown (and we discussed this tangentially in another thread) that those who view porn and use it to masturbate harm their relationships. Moreover, they become addicted to the chemicals that are released during orgasm and use it as a means to obtain that ‘high.’ The practical upshot is that they train themselves to an expression of sexuality that is individual rather than interpersonal, and they reduce their ability to have fulfilling sexual relationships with others. That’s hardly “harm (to) no one.”

I just emphasized that you are welcome to use any argument, as long as you can prove it. But you cannot.

Can you prove “masturbation harms no one”? :nope:
Have you proven any of your assertions in this thread? :nope:
Pot, meet kettle.

None of your examples show a causal relationship between a “sinful” act and its “propagation”

That’s because they’re anecdotal examples. I explicitly identified them as anecdotal. In fact, anecdotal examples illustrate, not prove. Therefore, you cannot disprove a claim by pointing to anecdotal examples.

All you have is a “maybe it might influence others”.

And all you seem to have is “nuh-uh, it doesn’t!” It seems we’re at loggerheads here.

Better luck next time when you attempt to use the “universal quantifier” (∀) as opposed to the “existential quantifier” (∃).

∀ claims by Catholic ∃ an atheist who believes that “another empty claim” is a logically sound rebuttal.

How’s that? Better?

 

[rinnie]

This is a standard disclaimer for those incorrect arguments which assert that atheists want to be “free to do whatever they want”. It is pointed out that “freedom to do whatever anyone wants” is NOT something atheists advocate. It is always corrected by stipulating “unless it hurts someone else”. Most of the time this stops the conversation, but recently I saw one poster, who said something extremely strange.

And this is what he said:

I never heard such a strange assertion. And then he adds more to it. He says:

Let’s find out what ways and means how a “sinful” act hurts everyone else?

Example: Some Catholic person misses mass for some mundane, frivolous reason. How would such an act “hurt” someone, who lives on the other side of the globe?

Or another: Some teenager has this normal urge to masturbate. He has been told that “playing” with his private parts is a serious sin, but does it anyhow. How does this act hurt some aborigine in Australia, who has never heard of this kid, and what he did? Or the idea that masturbation is a serious sin?

By the way: “atheism” does not equal or lead to hedonism.

Anyone is welcome to explain. Or point out that this concept is sheer nonsense.

Simple sin leads to more sin, until that sins destroys that person and others along the way.

A person who never does drugs tries it, likes it, then steals to get it, then kills to get it, then destroys themselves and others along the way. Pretty simple.

All sin separates you from God, when that happens the devil moves in and tries to get you to continue to sin, and sin grows etc as told above.

 

[Bradski]

Simple sin leads to more sin, until that sins destroys that person and others along the way.

A person who never does drugs tries it, likes it, then steals to get it, then kills to get it, then destroys themselves and others along the way. Pretty simple.

All sin separates you from God, when that happens the devil moves in and tries to get you to continue to sin, and sin grows etc as told above.

You are not describing something that will happen. You are describing something that might happen.

I have tried some of the less dangerous drugs and I liked them. Then stopped. I didn’t steal and I didn’t kill and I’m no worse off in any way whatsoever. Neither is anyone else. So it didn’t lead to more sin.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Simple sin leads to more sin, until that sins destroys that person and others along the way.

A person who never does drugs tries it, likes it, then steals to get it, then kills to get it, then destroys themselves and others along the way. Pretty simple.

Bradski already explained why is your analysis incorrect. You say that something happens, instead of something MIGHT happen.

All sin separates you from God, when that happens the devil moves in and tries to get you to continue to sin, and sin grows etc as told above.

The alleged separation from God is just an unsupported opinion. Personally, I committed many “mortal sins” - all of which were sexual in nature, and both myself and my willing partners are in good health. No one was “destroyed”, either physically of mentally. Of course to call those activities “sinful” is again an opinion, which I reject.

 

[fred_conty]

This is a standard disclaimer for those incorrect arguments which assert that atheists want to be “free to do whatever they want”. It is pointed out that “freedom to do whatever anyone wants” is NOT something atheists advocate. It is always corrected by stipulating “unless it hurts someone else”. Most of the time this stops the conversation, but recently I saw one poster, who said something extremely strange.

And this is what he said:

I never heard such a strange assertion. And then he adds more to it. He says:

Let’s find out what ways and means how a “sinful” act hurts everyone else?

Example: Some Catholic person misses mass for some mundane, frivolous reason. How would such an act “hurt” someone, who lives on the other side of the globe?

Or another: Some teenager has this normal urge to masturbate. He has been told that “playing” with his private parts is a serious sin, but does it anyhow. How does this act hurt some aborigine in Australia, who has never heard of this kid, and what he did? Or the idea that masturbation is a serious sin?

By the way: “atheism” does not equal or lead to hedonism.

Anyone is welcome to explain. Or point out that this concept is sheer nonsense.

Some one said of his father that most of his life he was an alcoholic. But in the last few years, he gave it up, but he retained an alcoholic personality which was difficult for others around him.

Porn is another wrong that attacks the person engaging in it. It has been well documented that it hurts not only the married spouse, but the person themselves. Masterbation is another wrong that gradually eats away at the value of the person doing it. Those who get stronger in it then are easy victims of porn or other such indecent acts.

Obviously, sin begets sin. And sin does nothing but harm even if it isn’t recognized for what it is. For example wrong thoughts are many times thought to be ok as long as they are not carried forward into actions. But we know that live roots send up shoots. There is no such thing as a theft taking place if there first weren’t the secret plans.

We are well aware of what good and bad example are and the direct effect these have on others. Sin changes us and poisons those around us.

Jesus had only one thing to say about copying him.
“Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart.”
Aren’t we impressed by someone who is truely kind to everyone? We ourselves are changed by them and also refreshed by their kindness. And isn’t the opposite true as well, by being fearful of those who exibit fear and hate? That is the difference between sin and virtue.

But there is a deeper meaning to all of this for the man of the faith. For in sin, we no longer walk with goodness himself, and our prayers are indeed weak and not as effective for the good of others because we are detached from the vine of Christ. So when we remain in his love, then the body of Christ on earth, as well as the world at large, benefit more from our attachment to the vine of Christ.

Our life is a beacon for others to find their way or to lose their way. Even in the little things we hardly take notice of.

 

[Bradski]

Obviously, sin begets sin. And sin does nothing but harm even if it isn’t recognized for what it is.

That is patently wrong and it has already been explained why it is wrong with an example given.

How about we discuss alcohol, as you brought it up. It’s fine as far as the Catholic church goes. But hang on, too much is a sin. So does God have a Celestial Breathalyzer Kit so we know when we’re getting to the point where we shouldn’t have any more?

Can I drink to get a buzz going? Which, seeing as nobody on the planet drinks whisky to quench their thirst, almost everybody does. That alcohol is there for a reason. It relaxes you. So is one drink a sin? Two? A few?

What if someone has one drink and then, because of her relaxed inhibitions, goes to bed with someone? Is one drink a sin in isolation because it led to something you would definitely class as a sin? And is it a sin if it doesn’t?

It would seem that maybe something is sinful IF and ONLY IF it leads to harm being caused. So if I took some drugs now and then and it had no more affect on me than a glass or two of whisky, then how did that lead to more sin? How did that affect anyone else?

 

[fred_conty]

That is patently wrong and it has already been explained why it is wrong with an example given.

How about we discuss alcohol, as you brought it up. It’s fine as far as the Catholic church goes. But hang on, too much is a sin. So does God have a Celestial Breathalyzer Kit so we know when we’re getting to the point where we shouldn’t have any more?

Can I drink to get a buzz going? Which, seeing as nobody on the planet drinks whisky to quench their thirst, almost everybody does. That alcohol is there for a reason. It relaxes you. So is one drink a sin? Two? A few?

What if someone has one drink and then, because of her relaxed inhibitions, goes to bed with someone? Is one drink a sin in isolation because it led to something you would definitely class as a sin? And is it a sin if it doesn’t?

It would seem that maybe something is sinful IF and ONLY IF it leads to harm being caused. So if I took some drugs now and then and it had no more affect on me than a glass or two of whisky, then how did that lead to more sin? How did that affect anyone else?

“A person takes a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes a person.” Written by an AA member in his book. That is because there is the belief that once an alcoholic, one drink is too many.

For those who aren’t alcoholic, a drink is not a sin. So I believe you misunderstood that a drink is always a sin, which it isn’t.

About taking illegal drugs, the prisons are filled with people who took them or pushed them. That is because we are under the law and have to abide by it. But those in prison have hurt a number of people by using those drugs. Then there is the other aspect of one thing leading to another, which before long the person becomes dependent. Then the real misery starts.

If I have hurt you in some way it wasn’t my intention. But the question was asked and I frankly answered it.

If you have something else to object to, please bring it up for discussion.

 

[Bradski]

“A person takes a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes a person.” Written by an AA member in his book. That is because there is the belief that once an alcoholic, one drink is too many.

For those who aren’t alcoholic, a drink is not a sin. So I believe you misunderstood that a drink is always a sin, which it isn’t.

About taking illegal drugs, the prisons are filled with people who took them or pushed them. That is because we are under the law and have to abide by it. But those in prison have hurt a number of people by using those drugs. Then there is the other aspect of one thing leading to another, which before long the person becomes dependent. Then the real misery starts.

If I have hurt you in some way it wasn’t my intention. But the question was asked and I frankly answered it.

If you have something else to object to, please bring it up for discussion.

Hey, nothing personal Fred. We’re all good.

But you are still talking about extremes of behaviour, not sin. Extreme behaviour is likely to affect one individually and almost certainly is likely to affect others. But if I have one more drink than you would consider prudent? Or by smoking one joint?

The point is that it is nonsensical to draw a line in the sand and then say that anything that goes beyond that is a sin and that anything this side of it isn’t. It would be like saying that 40 ml of whisky is OK but 41 ml is not. Otherwise what can you say? That 40 ml is nearly sinning and that 41 ml is sinning just a little bit? And that 50 ml is sinning a little bit more? As far as I can see, we are then talking relativism.

And even if you suggest that that is a valid position to take, then if sinning affects everybody and leads to more sin, then an amount of whisky that you couldn’t in all likelihood actually measure would affect everyone and lead to greater moral degradation.

It’s a nonsensical proposition. It’s bumper sticker quote that doesn’t stand up to the slightest investigation.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Porn is another wrong that attacks the person engaging in it. It has been well documented that it hurts not only the married spouse, but the person themselves. Masterbation is another wrong that gradually eats away at the value of the person doing it. Those who get stronger in it then are easy victims of porn or other such indecent acts.

What is “porn”? For all I know, you might consider Rodin’s beautiful sculpture “Kiss” to be pornographic, since it MIGHT cause someone to fantasize about sex. One person’s mildly interesting erotic material is “hard core pornography” for someone else. I visited the Vatican, and saw the results of the “Great Castration”. Wonderful ancient sculptures were barbarically vandalized in the name of “decency”.

Of course, pretty much everything can be detrimental, if done in excess, from drinking too much to overeating to jumping into bed with any stranger, to exercising too long or even praying too many hours a day. But the problem is with overdoing something, not what is being overdone. Your problem is the inability to distinguish between erotica and pornography.

Also, having non-procreative sex even in a monogamous, married relationship is “sinful”. Even if it does not lead to infidelity, the desire not to procreate and using artificial ways to prevent it, you consider such acts “sinful”. And you think that such sinful act affects EVERYONE… get real, buddy.

And such attitude takes away any credibility you might have. Think about it.

 

[Gorgias]

You are not describing something that will happen. You are describing something that might happen.

I have tried some of the less dangerous drugs and I liked them. Then stopped. I didn’t steal and I didn’t kill and I’m no worse off in any way whatsoever. Neither is anyone else. So it didn’t lead to more sin.

Ahh, but you don’t know that!

After all, you’re not taking into account all who were involved in the transactions and those who know about them. That would include the folks who sold you the drugs, and those who supplied them; those who bought drugs after you (after all, your purchase enabled your seller and his supplier(s) to continue on in their endeavors); those who hear you claim that drug use is harmless. Are you telling me that you know that none of these were harmed, to any extent, by your acts?

 

[Bradski]

Ahh, but you don’t know that!

After all, you’re not taking into account all who were involved in the transactions and those who know about them. That would include the folks who sold you the drugs, and those who supplied them; those who bought drugs after you (after all, your purchase enabled your seller and his supplier(s) to continue on in their endeavors); those who hear you claim that drug use is harmless. Are you telling me that you know that none of these were harmed, to any extent, by your acts?

You are suggesting that I don’t know what the outcomes were down the line. That they are unknowable. Which proves my point that you can’t make specific declarations about something if you the out ones are unclear

And I do know the outcomes. There were none. I was given some seeds by a friend so there was no dealer who was making money, I grew the plants myself, I was the only one who smoked it and a toke once in a blue moon is a lot less harmless than the zero sin of having a few drinks every week.

I think

 

[fred_conty]

“A journey begins with the first step.”

I wish I had a nickel for every story about that first step that someone took in the wrong direction and the regrets they had later.

It reminds me of what Ezekiel, the profit’s warning:

Repent, renounce all your sins, avoid all occasions of sin!

Originally posted by Bradski …
Hey, nothing personal Fred. We’re all good.

But you are still talking about extremes of behaviour, not sin. Extreme behaviour is likely to affect one individually and almost certainly is likely to affect others. But if I have one more drink than you would consider prudent? Or by smoking one joint?

Addictive substances restrict in some measure our abilities to think and act as we should. It isn’t a good idea to take a solidary drink if driving because of the effect of addictive substances. If one drink is perfectly safe, then why the caution not to give it to minors? The reason is that it has the ability to affect the brain in its function.

The Catholic teaching doesn’t say that addictive substances are always wrong. But that it does depend on the individual and how/how much is taken. For a little woman, one drink could be too much. For a large man, three drinks might not be too much. Sin is sometimes not clear black or white. But sometimes sin is clear.

From Bradski …
The point is that it is nonsensical to draw a line in the sand and then say that anything that goes beyond that is a sin and that anything this side of it isn’t. It would be like saying that 40 ml of whisky is OK but 41 ml is not. Otherwise what can you say? That 40 ml is nearly sinning and that 41 ml is sinning just a little bit? And that 50 ml is sinning a little bit more? As far as I can see, we are then talking relativism.

This relativism is answered above.

And even if you suggest that that is a valid position to take, then if sinning affects everybody and leads to more sin, then an amount of whisky that you couldn’t in all likelihood actually measure would affect everyone and lead to greater moral degradation.

When a person sins, it is a wrong act that always destroys some good in us. There are many instances where a person does not see what is destroyed in them and hurts others. Take for example a little lie. It doesn’t seem like much. But it leads to mistrust and breaks bonds of friendship. We become what we do and think and it does change us…the little things.

In life, we don’t always know what the consequences of our actions will do to us or others down the road. We can only know this when we look back on our life and regret the bad we did to others and to ourselves. It isn’t always that clear to us at the time what our bad acts will have. And so we try to justify what we do as not being so bad. So the thought goes … “a little smoking won’t hurt anyone.” But now we know different even tho at the time we didn’t think so. Sometimes it is forgotten that Pot is a smoke … which brings to mind the warning about our lungs.

By Bradski
It’s a nonsensical proposition. It’s bumper sticker quote that doesn’t stand up to the slightest investigation.

Well at least we agree on one thing … bumper stickers don’t do a thing except irritate people.

I will add this idea … that sin is misunderstood. It is just another word for injustice…to ourselves or others. It isn’t sin we need to be afraid of but rather ourselves in being unfair. In this discussion I left out our unfairness to God, who we believe is also dishonored all the more and in which our relationship with Him is harmed by each and every sin.

 

[Gorgias]

You are suggesting that I don’t know what the outcomes were down the line. That they are unknowable. Which proves my point that you can’t make specific declarations about something if you the out ones are unclear

This is a reasonable objection. However, I don’t think that it invalidates the assertion. There are many chains of events in the natural world that are too complex to pin down exactly, and yet, we can’t claim that they don’t exist based only on the fact that we can’t determinalistically quantify them. (Last week’s failed weather forecast about the blizzard comes to mind, as the storm that was predicted for SW Pennsylvania never materialized there.)

And I do know the outcomes. There were none. I was given some seeds by a friend so there was no dealer who was making money, I grew the plants myself, I was the only one who smoked it

You’re skipping one negative outcome.

You taught yourself (and reinforced that teaching) that it’s ok for you to selectively disobey civil and criminal laws. That’s bad for society. It has a negative effect. :sad_yes:

and a toke once in a blue moon is a lot less harmless than the zero sin of having a few drinks every week.

That’s a rationalization, not a defense. Interesting that you feel the need to rationalize your “no harm” activity…

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is a standard disclaimer for those incorrect arguments which assert that atheists want to be “free to do whatever they want”. It is pointed out that “freedom to do whatever anyone wants” is NOT something atheists advocate. It is always corrected by stipulating “unless it hurts someone else”. Most of the time this stops the conversation, but recently I saw one poster, who said something extremely strange.

And this is what he said:

I never heard such a strange assertion. And then he adds more to it. He says:

Let’s find out what ways and means how a “sinful” act hurts everyone else?

Example: Some Catholic person misses mass for some mundane, frivolous reason. How would such an act “hurt” someone, who lives on the other side of the globe?

Or another: Some teenager has this normal urge to masturbate. He has been told that “playing” with his private parts is a serious sin, but does it anyhow. How does this act hurt some aborigine in Australia, who has never heard of this kid, and what he did? Or the idea that masturbation is a serious sin?

By the way: “atheism” does not equal or lead to hedonism.

Anyone is welcome to explain. Or point out that this concept is sheer nonsense.

Imagine for a moment that a remote island is populated by a small group of people who are perfectly happy and who have no arguments, no complaints with one another, no resentments, and so forth. It is a peaceful, harmonious place.

One day, a young man sees a young girl bathing in the lagoon and overcome by desire, he rapes her.

Do you suppose that the interpersonal dynamics of the islanders will be forever altered by this act of violence? At the very least, I doubt that the young ladies will ever feel quite as safe in the lagoon again. The island, and the lives of all of its inhabitants, have been irrevocably altered by a single crime.

But what about masturbation? No victim there, right? Except that God is offended. Another person misses mass. And God is offended.

How many offenses might God be willing to put up with before He decides to put an end to the wickedness of the men that he created?

But how do these things affect others, you ask? Well, the young man continues his private sin and one day he decides to add a new element: viewing pictures of women wearing no clothing. A multi-billion-dollar industry is born.

The person who misses mass does so a second time. Then a third. Before long, a friend decides to skip mass also so that they can hang out together. After awhile, the whole town has begun to attend Sunday mass sporadically. Awhile longer, and the entire country has stopped going. This is France. Or England, or any of the western European nations that were once strong Catholic countries.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 26
12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body…26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Do you suppose that the interpersonal dynamics of the islanders will be forever altered by this act of violence?

“Forever” is a long time. And the inhabitants of another island will not be affected either. Of course such acts have an effect in a limited area and a limited time. No one of sound mind would deny it. But the assertion was different, it was that everyone will be affected. Even those who have never heard of this act and live on the other side of the globe. You (in general) would have a little more credibility if you would not go so far out from reality.

But what about masturbation? No victim there, right? Except that God is offended. Another person misses mass. And God is offended.

If that would be the case it would be God’s problem. But of course you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that God might be “offended”. I prefer to think that God would wink and mumble to himself… “well done Johnny” or “good job Susie”. Of course I have no evidence for this either, but I respect God’s (assumed) rationality, and would not believe that God gives us this small pleasure, and then would command us not to use it. Do you know that girls of a very young age (even under 2 years old) regularly masturbate if they happen to discover how pleasurable it is?

How many offenses might God be willing to put up with before He decides to put an end to the wickedness of the men that he created?

Ah, so the devastation done by hurricane Hugo and Katrina, and the others was done by God, being “offended” by some masturbation? I only heard such arguments from Pat Robertson and his ilk.

The person who misses mass does so a second time. Then a third. Before long, a friend decides to skip mass also so that they can hang out together. After awhile, the whole town has begun to attend Sunday mass sporadically. Awhile longer, and the entire country has stopped going. This is France. Or England, or any of the western European nations that were once strong Catholic countries.

I hope you don’t expect me to share your righteous indignation.