Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FITZZ wrote:

Witzkatz wrote:

Isn't belief in something better than belief in nothing?

And that's where I wouldn't agree directly. To be scientific: Why exactly should that be better?

Perhaps focusing our beliefs on our own capabilities,rather on some invisible Father figure would be the for the best.
...Chanel some energy into trying to alive some true social problems...like abused children or housing the homeless,rather than cringing in fear of being eternally damned for tossing off to some skin mag.

I think that some people are able to both of those things. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Religious intolerance is exactly the same as intollerance against religion. If you argue that Religious types would be better off jumping off a bridge then you are EXACTLY the same as those you wont tolerate.

So really the argument is invalid.

generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).

What if the woman is your wife?

Once you have done that.. you have committed adultery in your heart..and therefore are a sinner, more specifically an adulterer. This is from Jesus' own mouth

The context of this section of Matthew is about Jesus telling his disciplines about his relationship with the Law of God (the law of Moses) and how he intended them to act in respect to it. And his words specifically reference the concept of coveting women as it already exists in the old testament. Context matters in reading, and Matthew 5:28 is a reference to the 10th commandment. It does not refer to a fantasy of attraction or want but rather an excessive harboring of desire for that which isn't yours. Now we can agree that masturbation can actually do this, but it doesn't necessarily. The mere act isn't sinful. It's the intent of thought behind it that causes problems.

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Witzkatz wrote:

Isn't belief in something better than belief in nothing?

And that's where I wouldn't agree directly. To be scientific: Why exactly should that be better?

Perhaps focusing our beliefs on our own capabilities,rather on some invisible Father figure would be the for the best.
...Chanel some energy into trying to alive some true social problems...like abused children or housing the homeless,rather than cringing in fear of being eternally damned for tossing off to some skin mag.

I think that some people are able to both of those things. They aren't mutually exclusive.

No...of course they aren't,however...the homeless,the abused...the needy,are very real.
The idea...or belief,that damnation awaits for he who wacketh is just that...an idea.

LordofHats wrote:

generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).

What if the woman is your wife?

Well then, why not put the moves on her?

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Witzkatz wrote:

Isn't belief in something better than belief in nothing?

And that's where I wouldn't agree directly. To be scientific: Why exactly should that be better?

Perhaps focusing our beliefs on our own capabilities,rather on some invisible Father figure would be the for the best.
...Chanel some energy into trying to alive some true social problems...like abused children or housing the homeless,rather than cringing in fear of being eternally damned for tossing off to some skin mag.

I think that some people are able to both of those things. They aren't mutually exclusive.

No...of course they aren't,however...the homeless,the abused...the needy,are very real.
The idea...or belief,that damnation awaits for he who wacketh is just that...an idea.

There is more than one school of thought regarding Christians and masturbation, though I think GG has probably illustrated the one that is the most accurate according to scripture, and to be honest it's really not relevant to the main tenets of Christianity which are that that Jesus is the Savior and to follow the Golden Rule. I really think that if more Christians just stuck to that they wouldn't have such goofy footage of themselves to facepalm at.

Trying to change people's hearts through legislation just seems like a terrible way to spread the Gospel.

Monster Rain wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).

What if the woman is your wife?

Well then, why not put the moves on her?

...She's away on business?

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).

What if the woman is your wife?

Well then, why not put the moves on her?

...She's away on business?

Download Skype and you can both party!

Monster Rain wrote:

Trying to change people's hearts through legislation just seems like a terrible way to spread the Gospel.

QFT...100% agree.

While I am not a christian...I have no real problem with Christianity,and indeed find a lot of positive teachings in the Bible.
My chief complaint with organized Christianity is with the attempts to force their beliefs onto others.

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Trying to change people's hearts through legislation just seems like a terrible way to spread the Gospel.

QFT...100% agree.

While I am not a christian...I have no real problem with Christianity,and indeed find a lot of positive teachings in the Bible.
My chief complaint with organized Christianity is with the attempts to force their beliefs onto others.

Yep, trying to cram your views down other people's throats is going to meet with resistance.

The way you're really supposed to go about it is just generally living a beatific life and loving your neighbor as you do yourself. Seems like a much better selling point than funding lobbyists and polarizing people. That's just me though.

Dear God: Thanks for all the shame, I can definitely say that my childhood wouldn't have been the same without it.
In all seriousness I always laugh at people who condemn masturbation, because I would bet my life that absolutely 100% of the time they will have done it, and continue to do it.
All one has to do is take a look at what has happened to the catholic church in the past 5 years to see where dogmatic sexual repression and shame does to people. While growing up I had a youth pastor who carried on an affair with a 14 year old girl for more than a year, it's that type of thing that makes you re-consider your devotion.
We could start a whole new thread about the differences between God, and fallible people's false representations of Him, but in the end it's His "people" on Earth who are the only tangible evidence of His intervention into this existence. I've never seen a miracle IRL, nor anything else supernatural that couldn't be explained logically and without any need for Divine or ineffable intervention.
Therefore I go by what I see, does it not say "And ye shall know them by their fruit" and also "I say unto you faith without works is dead." By examining the "fruit" and "works" of religion I can only conclude that it is a farce, and a joke, that does nothing to uplift or edify mankind. Name one good or noble thing that a religious person has done or caused to happen, that a non-believer is not capable of also achieving. By the same token, look at all of the misery and death that can be directly attributed to religioun, and arguments over "God."

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).

What if the woman is your wife?

Well then, why not put the moves on her?

...She's away on business?

Download Skype and you can both party!

They're Amish

Lint wrote: Therefore I go by what I see, does it not say "And ye shall know them by their fruit" and also "I say unto you faith without works is dead." By examining the "fruit" and "works" of religion I can only conclude that it is a farce, and a joke, that does nothing to uplift or edify mankind.

That seems like a seriously disjointed non-sequitur to me. Maybe you could reword it so that I could respond?

Lint wrote: Name one good or noble thing that a religious person has done or caused to happen, that a non-believer is not capable of also achieving.

What would the point be?

Lint wrote: By the same token, look at all of the misery and death that can be directly attributed to religioun, and arguments over "God."

I fail to see what that has to do with the philosophy of any given Religion... Bad people have done bad things, there's no argument there.

LordofHats wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).

What if the woman is your wife?

Well then, why not put the moves on her?

...She's away on business?

Download Skype and you can both party!

They're Amish

Then she couldn't be that far away. You can't cover much ground riding a horse and buggy. Also, you could use the same hand motion to churn some butter and be doing something more productive with your time.

Monster Rain wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).

What if the woman is your wife?

Well then, why not put the moves on her?

...She's away on business?

Download Skype and you can both party!

They're Amish

Then she couldn't be that far away. You can't cover much ground riding a horse and buggy. Also, you could use the same hand motion to churn some butter and be doing something more productive with your time.

Yes...but even the Amish have two hands.

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).

What if the woman is your wife?

Well then, why not put the moves on her?

...She's away on business?

Download Skype and you can both party!

They're Amish

Then she couldn't be that far away. You can't cover much ground riding a horse and buggy. Also, you could use the same hand motion to churn some butter and be doing something more productive with your time.

Yes...but even the Amish have two hands.

I pictured that and literally loled.

My wife looked in here to see what I was up to. I told her, and she loled as well.

"Hezekiah! That's mighty unsanitary!"

mattyrm wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Science explains things far better than an ancient book of desert fables, and I'm well aware that you and your ilk want to force your disgustingly intolerant views...

Am I the only one that sees the irony here?

Yes you are.

Lack of belief doesn't demand religion be banned, it just demands that it doesn't get an unfair say when law making it deciding public policy. I rather like churches..

The religious however are desperate to enforce your will on people. You want abortion banned, you want to force people with cancer to stay alive even though you never met them and they might want something else. You hate gays for no sensible reason even though it can involve love, our most noble emotion.

If you didn't constantly try to force your will on strangers, then people like me wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Actually Matty, Monster Rain has a strong point. You do tend to have a go at 'Christians' here in general for what some do or say in the press, and also assume agreement with their dogmas irrsspective of any comments to the contrary.

Its one thing to hate the guilty its another thing to hate those with semi-associated beleifs.

So for example it is ok to hate Islamic terror, but not ok to hate Moslems. You or I can call Islam wrong or disagree with it, but not call them all evil. It is interesting that the latter was what you assumed I was doing (in complete contradiction to all I have ever wrote on Islam) for no greater reason than because I am a Christian. However we need not go into that here.

The relevant comparative example is that it is ok to hate 'Christian terror', but not to hate Christians. I had to put Christian terror in comments because there is little to no direct allegory here. The people who appear on these threads such as Westboro, anti abortionists and the subject of this thread often do no more than speak an opinion. If this was all Islamic militants did it is likely we would be given no choice but to leave them alone, as part of a multi-culturalism drive. Any commentary might be taken as hatred on our own part.
what makes this doubly ironic is that while Islamic militancy is largely not contradicted there are Christians of many denominations who will be very quick to disown people like Westboro Baptists. If you read the New Testament example clearly (which Westboro Baptists obviously do not do) there is possible reason to suggest Jesus himself is amongst those who will stand up and say 'I never knew you'. I cant say further than that because there is an equal warning not to judge mens salvation, they might change individually if not collectively.
Now the Westboro baptists are genuinely offensive. What is Christine O'Donnell doing that is inherently evil? She doesnt approve of masturbation, fair enough. She says its wrong, a fair comment in any democratic country. I put this in the same light as a right winger would think of a hard socialist who says we should have a planned economy and a punitively high tax rate band. Its their opinion, the main differences here is that while people with opinions on the opposite side of the political spectrum are a genuine 'threat' whio here actually thinks O'Donnell can ban masturbation?

Here is where the thread breaks down. Masturbation cannot be banned, and the people who made the video know this. All O'Donnell is trying to do is discourage musturbation, and then amongst those who share her world view. What she said rang true with General Grog and also to myself with certain caveats.* Job done. Noone is going to force Americans into chastity belts. Outside of states like Iran it is impossible to enforce on unblievers the strictures of some believers and the video should be seen in this light. Taking another example of this, most religious laws are applied to the faithful. This is a standard in the Old and New Testaments. Ancient Jews did not try to tell their neighbours not to eat pork, etc, instead they lived seperately. The Epistles gave instruction on things that the Corinthian church should not do that were commonplace in the rest of the city. The emphasis was never on enforcing those changes on the city itself, unless the citizens itself converted, and even then encvouraged would be a more accurate word to use than enforced.
Forced cultural change was a medieval concoction, and like most medieval church antics had very little to do with Christianity and a lot to do with power politics. Entry to the church at any level of authority was based on political connections and not any spiritual belief. By all evdence real Chrsitians did not advance for in the medieval church, Catherina of Sienna and Francis if Assissi had a bad time with the church authorities because they were holy. The dogmas were applied to control the masses, by politicans disguised as priests rather than priests themselves. Todays faithful can often look back at the excesses of the medieval church and say that was not us, that was the unblievers. I wonder if honest peaceful Allah fearing Moslems Iran can say the same of their own quasi-religious leadership in Iran, possibly so.


* Mat.5:28 (KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Wait... did I miss something? I didn't see anything in that video promoting legislation to ban masturbation. That would be absurd.

GG

[Mat.5:28 (KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

General Grog, the passage in Matthew regarding any lustful thought is essentially the same as an act of fornication in the mind is not intended to ban lustful thought. That is impossible due to the nature of man, Jesus was instead pointing out how attempts to adhere to the law by ojnes own strength is impossible. Improper thought can be lessened by the application of the Holy Spirit, but even then not eliminated.
St Paul regarded himself as the 'chief of sinners' late in his ministry. He likely wasnt this can only be taken to mean that he was no better than other sinners. This cross references with the ideal of Grace as explained in the book of Romans.
Christians are called to be 'living sacrifices' and to put the 'flesh to death' as an ongoing process. It is understood that the attempts will fail, that guilt is not the answer, but an acceptance that one is saved and continually being saved by Grace.
Biblical theology of sex is a difficult subject because Biblically it is not in itself considered evil, in fact it is openly encouraged, just within certain limitations. Most of those limitations are added by men in order to try and encalpulate the Biblical principles. So for example lustful thoughts are considered sin, masturbation is not listed as a sin, but its difficult to have the latter without the former, so the latter is considered sin by the priests, if not the Bible itself.
Furthermore while all sin is mortal some if worse than others. Jesus teaches us of two servants one who said 'I will not go, and eventually does, and one who says I will go and eventually does not'. The former is the obedient servant even though his initial thoughts were disobedient. Thought sin is nothing to worry about, even less so than other sin. So long as you are saved by the Blood of Christ all will be fine.
Were I to be judged for my thoughts I would be a murderer, a tyrant, a thief, a brute, an idolator and a lesbian. I very much doubt I am alone.

generalgrog wrote:Wait... did I miss something? I didn't see anything in that video promoting legislation to ban masturbation. That would be absurd.

GG

No, you didn't miss the point. Others did when they assumed the teaching was a call to restrict their lives.

If the Chief Rabbi adds a specific food product to the list of items not-Kosher it doesnt effect us, and is no call for a wider ban, even in Israel. This video should be seen in the same light. Its a message to the church not a call for any ban.

Orlanth I don't think we are disagreeing. In fact, I think you are saying the same thing I did, just in your own words.

I never said that man is a perfect being. Even Christians sin.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Orlanth I don't think we are disagreeing. In fact, I think you are saying the same thing I did, just in your own words.
I never said that man is a perfect being. Even Christians sin.

Totally agreed except for the last sentence. The more you understand what sin is the more you know we are no better, which is why Paul denegrated his own holiness despite his faith and accomplishments.

generalgrog wrote:Christians sin.

Fixed.

God this thread has become dull and insipid.

Well, it is now.

Short attention spans are not mandatory, this isnt Twitter or Facebook.

Orlanth wrote:Short attention spans are not mandatory, this isnt Twitter or Facebook.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that this is just another religion (well Christianity) vs atheism thread. We get them about once a week and at this point it is just wheels spinning in mud. Again, dull and insipid.

Orlanth wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Orlanth I don't think we are disagreeing. In fact, I think you are saying the same thing I did, just in your own words.
I never said that man is a perfect being. Even Christians sin.

Totally agreed except for the last sentence. The more you understand what sin is the more you know we are no better, which is why Paul denegrated his own holiness despite his faith and accomplishments.

generalgrog wrote:Christians sin.

Fixed.

Orlanth you are putting thoughts into my sentence. I get the feeling that you are thinking that I am some how implying that Christians are "better/ superior" to unbelievers.

In no way did I imply that. And in no way do I believe that.
GG

generalgrog wrote:
Orlanth you are putting thoughts into my sentence. I get the feeling that you are thinking that I am some how implying that Christians are "better/ superior" to unbelievers.

In no way did I imply that. And in no way do I believe that.
GG

I am concerned as how your comments will be seen. You dont beleive that, but someone can try and use the comment as a beatstick assuming you do.

Ahtman wrote:God this thread has become dull and insipid.

So you prefer irrational ranting over reasoned discussion?

GG

generalgrog wrote:
Let me explain why most Christians believe masturbation is a sin.

Most?

No, you have no evidence for that.

generalgrog wrote:
Mat.5:28 (KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Perfectly fine to look upon a man then.

Also, nothign about masturbation in there.

Who says you have to think about women when you masturbate? Perhaps you fancy Twinkies.

generalgrog wrote:
Mat 15:19 (KJV)For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

No mention of masturbation. The only way youm ight include masturbation is if you, yourself, placed it in one of those categories.

generalgrog wrote:
Gal 5:19(KJV)Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

No mention of masturbation.

generalgrog wrote:
So the point is this... in order to masturbate you must allow yourself to fall into an imagination of fornication/adultery.

Really? You can't masturbate to the idea of getting married and sleeping with your wife?

generalgrog wrote:
Once you do that you have sinned. It's really that simple.

As ever, you are wrong.

Here are my thoughts after reading through this thread:

It's all fine and dandy to have your beliefs about how evil masturbation is, and how you must abstain from lusting in order to gain entrance to paradise after you die, but don't force them on others. The reason I think Mattrym and others get quite. . argumentative about stuff like this, and about candidates like O'Donnell, is that if she and candidates like her are elected, they will try and force their morals and beliefs onto others through legislation, despite the fact that not everyone agrees with those morals and beliefs. Not everyone believes in fundamental Christianity, and those who do have absolutely no grounds upon which to assert that their beliefs are anymore right than anyone else's.

Summary:

Religion should keep its grubby paws out of government. (that almost sounds like it could be a tea party slogan. . . I scare myself sometimes)

rubiksnoob wrote:
It's all fine and dandy to have your beliefs about how evil masturbation is, and how you must abstain from lusting in order to gain entrance to paradise after you die,

Clearly wrong and unbiblical, abstainance and salvation are not connected. It would help to understand what you are critiquing if you wish to do so with such gusto.

rubiksnoob wrote:
but don't force them on others.

No force was implied.

rubiksnoob wrote:
The reason I think Mattrym and others get quite. . argumentative about stuff like this, and about candidates like O'Donnell, is that if she and candidates like her are elected, they will try and force their morals and beliefs onto others through legislation,

Here we come to the crux of your arguement. Its a hysterical scare story. ZOMG these Christians are going to take away our liberties!!!!
There has been Christian principle at the heast of America since it was founded. It was still a secular state practicing freedom of religion and freedom from religion, nothing has changed. Your liberties are not under threat because the video makers wish to exercise their own.

rubiksnoob wrote: despite the fact that not everyone agrees with those morals and beliefs.

Hardly in spite of or the Founding Fathers might have enforced fundamentalism. Christian morals and beliefs are seminal to the core culture of the USA, combined with the principles of ancient Greek democracy.

rubiksnoob wrote:
Not everyone believes in fundamental Christianity, and those who do have absolutely no grounds upon which to assert that their beliefs are anymore right than anyone else's.

Again incorrect. One of the principle rights of America is self belief. Believing onself right is a principle right of free expression. One need not just say we all have opinions one may also assert them openly. This simple concept is at the core of more than just religion, the same priciple drives Civil Rights, Minority Rights, Gay Rights etc.
Gays can be loud and proud, so can Blacks, so why not religious people too?

rubiksnoob wrote:
Summary:
Religion should keep its grubby paws out of government. (that almost sounds like it could be a tea party slogan. . . I scare myself sometimes)

Why should that be? Even candidates who never really see inside a church do so in election time.
Also other 'paws' any less 'grubby'.

Your distain for religious people does not make them any less fit for public office. In fact in local at least if not in national politics the honestly religious are often amongst the best quality public servants. After all the honest representative would share their beleif system (which may not be religious) wont hide it, will acknowledge friendly disagreement and are generally honest about it. The politicians to really look out for are those who will not show who they are one way or another. If a candidate cannot demonstrate their life philosophy to their electorate what else are they hiding.

Orlanth wrote:
Clearly wrong and unbiblical. It would help to understand what you are critiquing if you wish to do so with such gusto.

He didn't say it was Biblical or Christian. Do not project your interpretation on to the words of others.

Orlanth wrote:
No force was implied.

It doesn't have to be. As you demonstrated above, people will hear, or read, what they wish to.

Orlanth wrote:
Hardly in spite of or the Founding Fathers might have enforced fundamentalism. America is far less Christian than it was in its past, if it didnt sink into fundamentalism then, why should it now.

You don't get to make arguments regarding relative terms (fundamentalism) without temporal determinism. The fundamentalism of today is the standard practice of yesteryear, and the reaction against is directly tied to the notion that the US is less rigidly Christian than it once was.

Now, that doesn't mean your fundamental point, that fundamentalism isn't likely to take over, is incorrect. But it does mean that your argument is poor.

Orlanth wrote:
Again incorrect. One of the principle rights of America is self belief. Believing onself right is a principle right of free expression. One need not just say we all have opinions one may also assert them openly. This simple concept is at the core of more than just religion, the same priciple drives Civil Rights, Minority Rights, Gay Rights etc.
Gays can be loud and proud, so can Blacks, so why not religious people too?

We can also mock them for their stupidity. Nominally this involves discussing the ridiculousness of assuming a privileged stance due to agreement with a book some dudes wrote a long time ago.

Freedom of expression and all that.

Orlanth wrote:
Why should that be? Even candidates who never really see inside a church do so in election time.

I believe that's what rubiksnoob is arguing against.

Orlanth wrote:
Your distain for religious people does not make them any less fit for public office.

According to your statement above, regarding the freedom to state one's beliefs, it most certainly does.

Relative judgment and all that.

Orlanth wrote:
In fact in local at least if not in national politics the honestly religious are often amongst the best quality public servants. After all the honest representative would share their beleif system (which may not be religious) wont hide it, will acknowledge friendly disagreement and are generally honest about it. The politicians to really look out for are those who will not show who they are one way or another. If a candidate cannot demonstrate their life philosophy to their electorate what else are they hiding.

If a candidate openly discusses his life philosophy, what is he trying to hide?

One of the best ways to hide the 'truth' is to be open about everything that you don't want to conceal.

What we really need to watch out for are the unimaginative people granted the franchise, they tend to assume that their first response is correct without ever considering the weaknesses of such a position.