...unless it hurts someone else

[psalm90]

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”.

Atheism is the most heinous idea that has ever been unleashed against mankind. Hundreds of millions of people were killed by atheist regimes in the 20th century by regimes that DID EXACTLY what they wanted, and it continues unbridled in places like North Korea. In NK, every human action is controlled and the regime tries to control every thought.

some think that this is the triumph of socialism – total human control, total human debasement. Dance to their music, drink their kool-aid.

What an idea to bet your money on.

 

[inocente]

Smells like “Red Herring”.

The claim in the OP is that “Catholics believe that all sin hurts everyone. There’s no sin that doesn’t hurt others.”

Father Wagner is a Catholic, who was briefly promoted to auxiliary bishop, and he claimed that sin really did hurt everyone in New Orleans, that divine punishment sent rain on the righteous and the unrighteous in the form of Hurricane Katrina.

Many Catholics were not convinced by Father Wagner’s claim, And if it’s not true that Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment for a gay bar in New Orleans, it’s reasonable to ask those who claim that all sin hurts everyone: how much did the sins that may have been committed in that gay bar hurt the inhabitants of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. compared to those hurt by Katrina?

 

[Gorgias]

Are you sure that’s what the CCC means?

“Sin… injures human solidarity.” How can it mean anything less than what it states explicitly?

I can see how the Holocaust harmed all and offended God. But to claim, for instance, that one person dressing immodestly, in contravention of CCC 2521, is in any sense comparable is surely trivializing the deaths of the six million?

Aaaand… there’s the red herring. It didn’t take us long to get there.

The wisdom of this world says, “if this sin is really, really bad… then that sin can’t have bad effects, since it’s soooo less important.” That sounds a lot like the serpent in the Garden, doesn’t it? :sad_yes:

No – one sin does not, and can not, trivialize another. Neither do we set up one sin to compare against another. But hey… nice try.

If that’s your reason to go to church, I can save you ever going again.

Again, non sequitur. The claim wasn’t “go to church so that you can give money”; it was a response to “what bad effects can come from not going to church?”. Big difference…

Jesus warns against a public show of giving: “when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” - Matt 6

This isn’t about a “public show”. No one makes a public show when they drop money in a basket. Remember that quote from Wayne Gretzky, though? “Every shot you fail to take will fail to score a goal.” Same thing here.

So whether or not you go to church, it’s better to make a direct debit, or to otherwise transfer online. An added bonus is that here in Spain at least, the tax authority computer then knows your donations and reduces your tax bill, so you can donate the tax saved as well.

Wait… the Spanish tax authority knows your donations??? So… you’re making a public show of giving?

 

[Gorgias]

I know. I did. Because if the claim is that dressing immodestly causes offense to God, and that the Holocaust causes offense to God, then it is legitimate to ask those making the claim whether they cause equal offense to God?

No. It’s not reasonable. In fact, it’s a facetious attempt to make one sin seem like it’s not sinful. All sin offends God. Unless, of course, you want to claim that you can commit this sin, since it’s not as bad as that sin. That’s quite a slippery slope…

There are lots of questions, such as should I dress modestly in the shower and bath to avoid offending God?

Yes. Definitely. And while you’re at it, don’t wash yourself there. It might be a near occasion of sin for you.

 

[Vonsalza]

The claim in the OP is that “Catholics believe that all sin hurts everyone. There’s no sin that doesn’t hurt others.”

Father Wagner is a Catholic, who was briefly promoted to auxiliary bishop, and he claimed that sin really did hurt everyone in New Orleans, that divine punishment sent rain on the righteous and the unrighteous in the form of Hurricane Katrina.

Many Catholics were not convinced by Father Wagner’s claim, And if it’s not true that Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment for a gay bar in New Orleans, it’s reasonable to ask those who claim that all sin hurts everyone: how much did the sins that may have been committed in that gay bar hurt the inhabitants of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. compared to those hurt by Katrina?

I guess “hasty generalization” more accurately describes it.

 

[inocente]

“Sin… injures human solidarity.” How can it mean anything less than what it states explicitly?

“injures human solidarity” doesn’t translate to “harms all”.

Human solidarity is a concept of brotherhood, which the UN defines as “those who either suffer or benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most”. The CCC also says that “Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work”, and goes further by including spiritual goods.

So you could maybe use “harms brotherhood” as a synonym for “injures human solidarity”, but “harms all” loses the intended concept of fellowship. Sins often deprive others, and that seems to be the CCC’s meaning. The CCC’s authors are not, imho, waving in some vague way that involves having to hunt around to work out how you might be injured by someone on the other side of the world who wore a short skirt last week, but rather at real immediate concerns for well-being.

*Aaaand… there’s the red herring. It didn’t take us long to get there.

The wisdom of this world says, “if this sin* is really, really bad… then that sin can’t have bad effects, since it’s soooo less important.” That sounds a lot like the serpent in the Garden, doesn’t it? :sad_yes:

No – one sin does not, and can not, trivialize another. Neither do we set up one sin to compare against another. But hey… nice try.

Post-grad Straw Clutching 302 .

If you use “injures human solidarity” then the Holocaust obviously injured brotherhood big-time for generations to come, in ways and to an extent that one person dressing immodestly could never do. Your “harms all” doesn’t capture that.

Again, non sequitur. The claim wasn’t “go to church so that you can give money”; it was a response to “what bad effects can come from not going to church?”. Big difference…

Not giving to the collection injures human solidarity to the extent that it doesn’t benefit those who deserve help, and donating online instead doesn’t cause that injury. Therefore the injury must be something else. One way not going to church injures human solidarity might be that your friends don’t see you, and if they also give up going then your spiritual brotherhood is lost. I think you can’t easily see that if you instead substitute your “sin harms all”.

*This isn’t about a “public show”. No one makes a public show when they drop money in a basket. Remember that quote from Wayne Gretzky, though? “Every shot you fail to take will fail to score a goal.” Same thing here.

Wait… the Spanish tax authority knows your donations??? So… you’re making a public show of giving? *

I think Jesus means don’t give to the poor to show off how wealthy and generous you are to your neighbors, but instead give out of compassion. If you do the former, you don’t injure material human solidarity, but you injure spiritual solidarity. If you do the latter, you don’t injure either.

The tax authority already knows my finances down to the last centimo, so whether their computer knows where my money went doesn’t injury anyone. But once you know you automatically pay less tax if you donate online, and you can therefore donate the savings as well, you injure human solidarity if you don’t. Again, this is something we can see if we use the CCC’s words, but we can’t if we substitute your “harms all”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So, perhaps, if you wish to advance the conversation, you might begin to identify your criteria for “hurting someone else.”

The surprises never cease. You don’t know what “hurting someone else” means, but you assert that every sinful act harms everyone else. So let me educate you: harm is either physical, or psychological harm. Physical harm is easy: grab a baseball bat, and hit someone else. The psychological harm is more complicated. If I would tell a joke, which you might find offensive, or in very bad taste, I would decline to accept responsibility for the “psychological harm”. If I would spread all sorts of lies about you, then the harm would be real.

So, not that you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, but here’s what the Church writes in its catechism:

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity.

When you hear a Catholic saying that “sin harms all”, this is what he means. Sin is an offense, first and foremost, against God. In addition, it wounds our nature; therefore, when a person sins, he does harm to himself – and as a result, his future actions are affected, as are his interactions with others.

I am not “dogmatic”, and I do not reject any argument out of hand. However, any reference to God, or “spiritual harm” must be substantiated, and not simply asserted. And that lack of proof makes such arguments meaningless.

I’m not saying that there’s an effect that is in all cases immediate, direct, and universal; but there is a negative effect that spreads outwards in waves. In a way, it’s a variant of the “butterfly effect” notion.

If you throw a stone in the water, it will make waves for a short time, in a limited area - and then the waves will die out. Certainly there MAY BE a limited effect. But your idea of the “butterfly effect” is incorrect. It only means that in a non-linear system (like the weather), a small change in the initial conditions will make the end result impossible to predict. It does not mean that the changes will go on and on… and affect everyone.

This is only able to be answered anecdotally, of course. But, let me serve up a possible scenario:

By missing Mass, this person misses the opportunity to participate in a collection that goes to help the missions in a third world country. Therefore, less resources go to the people of that company. Therefore, someone on the other side of the globe is ‘hurt’ by one Catholic’s decision to avoid Mass.

See? Not so strange.

You assume that there is a predetermined amount that must go to charity, and if one person does not participate, then someone on the other side of the globe will not receive the help that is “due to her”. Yes, very strange. We are not responsible for everyone else. First, we don’t even know what the problems are, and second, we lack the resources, even if we knew. Only God is in the position and has the wherewithal to help… and he does not.

I’m not saying that the particular sin is visited on all in an equal measure and in an identical way. That would be a foolish assertion. However, I am asserting that sin harms the person who commits it, and it changes him; this change is visited, in various ways, upon those with whom he comes in contact. That’s all I’m asserting. Nothing ‘strange’ there.

How does non-procreative sex “harm” the ones who engage in it?

You state that your code is “I do what I want.”

No, I did not say that. I always add: “unless it hurts someone else”. And it looks like that your attempt to say that “every sin hurts everyone else” is just an empty phrase, without substance.

Unless you desire pain, this means that you desire what brings you pleasure. You do know the definition of hedonism… don’t you?

Yes, I do, but you don’t. Hedonism would be a total disregard of everyone else.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Vera,

In a theological sense, I would imagine it referring to spiritual harm, as in you’re damaging your good standing with God. This is sense of death that Adam and Eve probably experienced just for a simple act of disobedience.

As always, I do not reject this approach out of hand. But you need to prove that God exists, and explain what “spiritual harm” might be.

 

[omgriley]

I know. I did. Because if the claim is that dressing immodestly causes offense to God, and that the Holocaust causes offense to God, then it is legitimate to ask those making the claim whether they cause equal offense to God? Or does dressing immodestly cause more offense than the Holocaust? Less? How much less?

If you’re asking if there are varying degrees of severity in regards to sin, then yes, there are. Genocide is clearly worse than immodest dress. That doesn’t make the latter OK.

There are lots of questions, such as should I dress modestly in the shower and bath to avoid offending God?

I assume this question is rhetorical? Maybe not. Dressing immodestly isnt sinful just because God doesn’t like the style or seeing you naked offends him. It’s the carelessness and disrespect we show for our bodies which offends Him. It also causes others to sin by placing suggestive images in their minds in the same way pornography does.

I think people may differ on which skirt lengths are appropriate on the beach, and this may indicate that God isn’t offended. After all, He’s seen us all naked anyway.

I already pointed out that reasonable minds could disagree on what is and isn’t appropriate. My point is about obvious immodesty. If you can’t see that line then there’s nothing I can do.

You give the tax deduction to charity, and that way increase your contribution. Still, if you think Jesus warns you to keep donations secret from computers, what can I say.

My point was made based off of your standards. You’re the one who said that Jesus frowns upon public donations when that’s clearly absurd.

 

[omgriley]

Wait… the Spanish tax authority knows your donations??? So… you’re making a public show of giving?

Apparently he doesn’t get the double standard.

 

[Gorgias]

The surprises never cease. You don’t know what “hurting someone else” means

Nice try. No… since I disagreed with your take on it, I wanted to hear what your notion of harm was. I already know what it is.

harm is either physical, or psychological harm. Physical harm is easy: grab a baseball bat, and hit someone else.

Good start. Now, let’s get to the meat of the assertion. If you hit someone with a bat, you learn that physical violence works, and therefore, you’re more likely to hit someone else. Ergo, your sin of battery affects that next person. Moreover, the person you hit has learned that physical violence is acceptable, so he’s more likely to use it, too. Therefore, your sin has affected those who come in contact with your victim.

Get it, now?

The psychological harm is more complicated. If I would tell a joke, which you might find offensive, or in very bad taste, I would decline to accept responsibility for the “psychological harm”.

So, if your actions cause psychological harm… who’s to blame? Victim-blame much, do you?

I am not “dogmatic”, and I do not reject any argument out of hand. However, any reference to God, or “spiritual harm” must be substantiated

Sorry… the context of the question that you asked included “sin”. In your very question, you opened the door to a theological discussion. No putting the genie back in the bottle now…

If you throw a stone in the water, it will make waves for a short time, in a limited area - and then the waves will die out. Certainly there MAY BE a limited effect.

And, as I mentioned, the concept isn’t merely the direct effect. It’s also the effect felt by those who experience the initial effect, and how that effect changes them for the worse.

But your idea of the “butterfly effect” is incorrect. It only means that in a non-linear system (like the weather), a small change in the initial conditions will make the end result impossible to predict.

Psst… that’s why I didn’t say “it is the butterfly effect”, but rather, it’s a variant of the idea. But hey… if refuting the argument I didn’t make is fun for ya, go for it!

You assume that there is a predetermined amount that must go to charity, and if one person does not participate, then someone on the other side of the globe will not receive the help that is “due to her”. Yes, very strange.

Let me help you with the math: if the person would have made a donation of $20, and doesn’t go to Mass, then the collection nets some value X. If they do go to Mass, the collection nets X+20. Therefore, the effect of missing Mass is $20 less to those who needed it. Direct effect. Nothing strange.

We are not responsible for everyone else. First, we don’t even know what the problems are, and second, we lack the resources, even if we knew.

Non sequitur.

No, I did not say that. I always add: “unless it hurts someone else”.

And I’m saying that your concept of ‘hurt’ is insufficient and myopic.

Yes, I do, but you don’t. Hedonism would be a total disregard of everyone else.

Actually, you might want to look it up, then. Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure; as an ethical theory, it’s the idea that the pursuit of what the individual wants is the highest ideal in life. But hey, if you want to hold to a non-standard definition, have at it…

 

[Bradski]

Nice try…Good start…Get it, now?..Victim-blame much, do you?.. No putting the genie back in the bottle now…Psst…But hey… if refuting the argument I didn’t make is fun for ya, go for it! …Let me help you with the math…But hey, if you want to hold to a non-standard definition, have at it…

This looks like a post from someone who is losing an argument.

 

[Gorgias]

This looks like a post from someone who is losing an argument.

LOL! Nah… just frustrated at the game-playing. And reflecting back the tone I’m hearing.

 

[inocente]

If you’re asking if there are varying degrees of severity in regards to sin, then yes, there are. Genocide is clearly worse than immodest dress. That doesn’t make the latter OK.

I assume this question is rhetorical? Maybe not. Dressing immodestly isnt sinful just because God doesn’t like the style or seeing you naked offends him. It’s the carelessness and disrespect we show for our bodies which offends Him. It also causes others to sin by placing suggestive images in their minds in the same way pornography does.

I already pointed out that reasonable minds could disagree on what is and isn’t appropriate. My point is about obvious immodesty. If you can’t see that line then there’s nothing I can do.

The OP asks whether “all sin hurts everyone”, a slogan which maybe sounds profound on a bumper sticker until you think about it. Imho it’s a misunderstanding of what the Church teaches (post #23 and #26).

From what I can see, the CCC does not teach that “all sin hurts everyone”, as that would mean that somehow a Buddhist is hurt by a Baptist wearing shorts to church on the opposite side of the world. Someone suffering from scrupulosity (“pathological guilt about moral or religious issues”) might imagine it hurts everyone, but plainly it doesn’t.

So I think the bumper sticker is wrong, and that’s not what the Church teaches.

I don’t know how short those shorts have to be before they are obvious immodesty, but the only way to be certain you’re not “placing suggestive images in their minds in the same way pornography does” is to wear a burka to church. I mean I see your point that wearing a bikini to a funeral might not be in the best possible taste, but I think theologians might agree that compared to six million dying in ovens it won’t offend God much.

My point was made based off of your standards. You’re the one who said that Jesus frowns upon public donations when that’s clearly absurd.

As I said, here in Spain at least, you can donate more by doing it online because it’s then tax deductible. That’s actually the entire reason why the government gives you a tax break. And this is a Catholic country, so these is not my standards, these are standards welcomed by the Church, because it increases what people can afford to give (and btw gives your church a guaranteed income as long as you subscribe, so they can plan better).

Here’s what Jesus says again. Please explain why you think Jesus is telling you to make your donations in cash in public, and pay tax, rather than doing it privately by direct debit so you can also donate the tax saved:

*"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” - Matt 6*

 

[Vico]

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.

Catechism
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.” 121

121 St. Augustine, Contra Faustum 22L 42,418; St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,71,6.

Summa Theologica I-II,71,6
Reply to Objection 5. The theologian considers sin chiefly as an offense against God; and the moral philosopher, as something contrary to reason. Hence Augustine defines sin with reference to its being “contrary to the eternal law,” more fittingly than with reference to its being contrary to reason; the more so, as the eternal law directs us in many things that surpass human reason, e.g. in matters of faith.

newadvent.org/summa/2071.htm

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Good start. Now, let’s get to the meat of the assertion. If you hit someone with a bat, you learn that physical violence works, and therefore, you’re more likely to hit someone else.

No, it is not “more likely”.

Ergo, your sin of battery affects that next person. Moreover, the person you hit has learned that physical violence is acceptable, so he’s more likely to use it, too. Therefore, your sin has affected those who come in contact with your victim.

This is still a far cry form your “every sin affects everyone”. Of course in your worldview masturbation is also a mortal sin… and it harms no one. Besides, how does that fit into your idea of “infecting” others?

So, if your actions cause psychological harm… who’s to blame? Victim-blame much, do you?

That is nonsense. Being “offended” is not harm. Telling lies about someone IS harm.

Sorry… the context of the question that you asked included “sin”. In your very question, you opened the door to a theological discussion. No putting the genie back in the bottle now…

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

And, as I mentioned, the concept isn’t merely the direct effect. It’s also the effect felt by those who experience the initial effect, and how that effect changes them for the worse.

Another empty claim.

And I’m saying that your concept of ‘hurt’ is insufficient and myopic.

Just another empty claim. None of your examples show a causal relationship between a “sinful” act and its “propagation”; and most certainly not an open-ended causal chain, which will reach everyone to their detriment. All you have is a “maybe it might influence others”.

Better luck next time when you attempt to use the “universal quantifier” (∀) as opposed to the “existential quantifier” (∃).
As in: “some sins affect others as opposed to every sin affects everyone else”. Savvy?

 

[omgriley]

I don’t know how short those shorts have to be before they are obvious immodesty, but the only way to be certain you’re not “placing suggestive images in their minds in the same way pornography does” is to wear a burka to church.

Not true. They could simply try not showing off too much cleavage. Simple and reasonable.

I mean I see your point that wearing a bikini to a funeral might not be in the best possible taste

Gee, why do you think that is??

but I think theologians might agree that compared to six million dying in ovens it won’t offend God much.

Again, you cannot compare the two. Just because people would agree that one is clearly worse doesn’t at all follow the the other is still wrong. Stop pretending that God the kind of person who only has time to be offended by the “bigger issues”

As I said, here in Spain at least, you can donate more by doing it online because it’s then tax deductible. That’s actually the entire reason why the government gives you a tax break. And this is a Catholic country, so these is not my standards, these are standards welcomed by the Church, because it increases what people can afford to give (and btw gives your church a guaranteed income as long as you subscribe, so they can plan better).

Here’s what Jesus says again. Please explain why you think Jesus is telling you to make your donations in cash in public, and pay tax, rather than doing it privately by direct debit so you can also donate the tax saved:

*"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” - Matt 6*

This will be the third time I’ve responded to this objection. I never said that Jesus is directing us to make donations in public. In your post you made the claim that Jesus warns against public donations (and that apparently it’s OK to donate to charities via the government—which is clearly public information—in order to get tax break.) You’re the one arguing Matthew 6 condemns public giving and instead directs us to use our debit cards (where’s the nearest ATM in A.D. 35 Jerusalem?) and I gave you examples which indicate that’s clearly not true. Matthew 6 has nothing to do with the morality of giving publicly or privately. It has to do with one’s desire to be publicly recognized and praised and using that desire as a motivation to give. That is what Christ is condemning.

 

[HelenRose]

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.

I have to admit that is an interesting question.

Let us say that instead of masturbating a teenager uses this time to pray for the indigenous people of Australia. He may pray a Rosary and read about and study the needs of these people. He may, through Facebook, or some other means, find a friend in Australia. In time his life may lead him to Australia to some good for the friend and friends he has made. Masturbation takes a person more and more into themselves thereby making them less aware of the people around him. Prayer, on the other hand, takes a person out of themselves and opens them up to service for their fellow men and women.

 

[inocente]

This will be the third time I’ve responded to this objection. I never said that Jesus is directing us to make donations in public. In your post you made the claim that Jesus warns against public donations

Nope, I said Jesus warns against a public show of giving.

The question of whether men should blame women for the naughty thoughts in men’s heads, while interesting, is off-topic, and I’ve not got anything more to say about giving to charity.

I joined the thread to discuss the OP, and I’ve said why imho the CCC does not say all sin hurts everyone, and no one has told me I’m wrong. So until someone disagrees with me on the thread topic, I don’t really have anything else to say. Thanks for the conversation, see you around.

btw if you click on the Quote button when replying to a post, it will include an automatic link to the post you’re quoting, as above.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I have to admit that is an interesting question.

Let us say that instead of masturbating a teenager uses this time to pray for the indigenous people of Australia. He may pray a Rosary and read about and study the needs of these people. He may, through Facebook, or some other means, find a friend in Australia. In time his life may lead him to Australia to some good for the friend and friends he has made.

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.

Masturbation takes a person more and more into themselves thereby making them less aware of the people around him. Prayer, on the other hand, takes a person out of themselves and opens them up to service for their fellow men and women.

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.