Is Masturbation Wrong?

Nice article, bro! We all kinda know it's wrong, for the Spirit that dwels inside us give that understanding. But, it's also good - and essencial - to have the bible's explanation well known, in due to use this as a defense for when the Enemy threatens us with his lies.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8 31-32)

 

If I were marking this as a paper for a class, I would give it an F. It's abysmal argumentation, and I'm not advocating pornography but just the proper handling of the bible and for good writing.

The sermon on the mount passage, 'whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery in his heart', is in the context of actual adultery and the sinfulness of man. The passage deals with the sinful nature of man and our depravity, we hate our brothers, we find fault in others but are guilty, and we lust after other women when the law commands us not to covet our neighbour's wife. Attraction to women in general is not in the context. A discussion about this could be found in I Corinthians which talks about taking wives as attaching ourselves to the world, but this is admittedly weak.

The section about voyeurism and 'porn direction' is simply pointless, it is half the article and contains no conclusion and essentially nothing to do with the morality of masturbation. The author fails to make an 'is/ought' distinction.

The section on imaginary rape is just laughable. It is not the normative state of someone lusting after a woman to conceive of the imaginary encounter as coerced. The argument is nonsensical. It's just meant to intimidate the reader but contains no substance. Do not fall for a cleverly constructed image/analogy in writing.

The closing argument is just a weak interpretation of C.S. Lewis, which introduces a new argument about selfishness but does nothing to elaborate it. The argument from selfishness may be the strongest against pornography, but be careful as this argument can be applied endlessly until you find yourself living an ascetic lifestyle (choose this over denying Christ any day, but don't seek it out). The closing remarks rely on frightening imagery of a porn user enslaving an imaginary harem of women, there is simply no substance. The article closes by further imposing the sermon on the mount's account of depravity onto an incongruent situation. This is terrible work for someone pursuing an apologetics degree.

 

The main help of the article in question was that it pointed back to Lewis on this topic, who makes a strong argument against PMO, I think. Disciples are disciplined by definition, and so there is some degree of asceticism we all must embrace, each as directed by the Spirit. Those areas where we are most prone to sin are the ones where we often find we need to erect the strongest barrier.

 

The purpose of the adultery part of the sermon on the mount was to basically convict every man. Because every man has looked at a woman or man lustfully. Especially the Pharisees of the day who thought they were earning there salvation by following the law outwardly while inwardly having feelings of lust and hate. Apart from Christ no one has a chance. That is why we cling to His righteousness. Voyeurism and PMO are wrong and we all knew it the first time we engaged in it but then our conscience was hardened.

 

The first paragraph makes it clear that the author wishes to address the question, 'is masturbation wrong?' On the basis of his thesis statement, something someone in a graduate program ought to adhere to by 2nd nature, so I will hold him to it, the article fails to employ proper argumentation as I outlined.

 

As a former logic instructor, I feel your pain. As an adult human being, I have learned not to expect rational argument to show up in everyday life very often. So be it!

 

Yes, the greatest theme in the sermon on the mount is that the inward man is inherently sinful and this image of adultery in the heart, along with hating your brother, etc, shows that even if we strive to follow the law, 'checking off boxes,' we nevertheless fail and are slaves to our own sin. Romans 2-3 is very similar to this, 'you who preaches "do not steal," do you also steal?...' building to ''no one is righteous, no not one' and then the gospel.
I really feel bad for the 'Jesus was just a great moral teacher' crowd who acknowledges the superiority of genuine works from the heart versus outward adherence, outlined in the sermon on the mount, but they fail to understand the implications this has for them and judgement.

 

... I'll give the benefit of the doubt to what you're saying 'as an adult human being,' (in contrast to someone else?). Although I must object to becoming apathetic to poor argumentation.

 

I humbly offer this as relevant to this conversation. In this link is an excellent 3 minute sermon on last Sunday's gospel John 10:11-18. Listen to minutes 9:50 to 12:50 if you are interested.

If you are impatient, like I am, I will try to sum it up for you. (Knox) John 10:14"I am the good shepherd; my sheep are known to me and know me". Sheep are not very clever animals but they know the sound of their masters voice and they will run away from the sound of another's voice. We need to be at least as smart as a sheep. When someone writes or says something that appears to be a new take on sin. We need to run away immediately. Remaining open-minded about secular matters is generally good advice but when it comes to sin and its various forms, we need to run away from those who have a new take on it. To say to ourselves, well gee this is an interesting idea, is simply dangerous.

 

I have to agree with the "rigid" view MyFortress has expressed here. Regardless of one's church affiliation, if you look at ancient commentaries by Christians of all places and centuries, you will never find anything condoning self pleasure. Actually you only find strict condemnation.
If you want a practical explanation why that is, it could simply be that ancient Israel actually did recognise such acts as sinful and passed down this notion to early Christians. But my general explanation is that writers of the early Church were generally speaking very holy men and their discernment was superior thanks to their communion with God and purity of mind. So they considered the issue and condemned it. That's it for me.

But even merely looking inside you as you imagine how you started it all will show you how you felt bad about it and still do.

 

I believe masturbation is also against commandment #2.

You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
(Ex. 20:4–5).

Masturbation is not a material counterfeit, but it is a counterfeit of the natural God given sexuality.

 

The 2nd commandment is about worshiping idols, it's really an extension of the first. I don't think 'counter-fitting God given sexuality' is really applicable, the 2nd commandment is all about God, not His design. The applicability of idolatry to masturbation is there, but remember that this argument can be made about almost anything.

 

I think this is relevant: in orthodoxy we often refer to anything that distracts from God as an idol, in reference to the 2nd commandment. So you can hear even loved ones being called idols and our worship of them idolatry.
Just to make cleae, your comment is agreeable, I'm not arguing against what you said.

 

Do you mean Eastern Orthodoxy?

Paul does recommend against marriage to the Corinthians for those who can handle it, for precisely the reason that it distracts from God... Still marriage is noble, and necessary for some roles in the church, as per the epistle to Timothy... I can tell you that it's certainly not my gift to forgo marriage.

 

Immortality and PMO can definitely become idolatry. We can idolize anything. Money, hobbies, success, status, the approval of others and many more.

 

Exactly, and thus this argument is no more able to ban PMO than to ban those things. I'm not arguing for PMO, I'm simply playing 'devil's advocate'

 

yeah, though we simply call it Orthodoxy.
It isn't my gift either, but more for other reasons than chastity. We also have examples of chaste marriages so there is that option too. Marriage for me is more of a deep spiritual and emotional union, that also gracefully allows us to copulate lawfully and multiply. Raising children is also a key aspect of the whole union.

 

It’s not just being allowed to copulate. Sex in the biblical context glorifies God. It is not a necessary evil for procreation it is a god given pleasure that re-enforces that deep bond you speak of. The dopamine rush was intended to bind you exclusively to your wife.