Have You Ever Been Caught Masturbating?

[jrgp]

Also, quick summary - he thinks that masturbation is evil (against good) and ungodly because sexuality is sacred and between husband and wife. I still haven't figured out how he applies this to other animals.

:0

N. Escalona, what are your thoughts on homosexuals? You seem so bible ruled that I wouldn't be surprised if you said they're all definitely going to hell/purgatory.

And what do you think of a husband and wife giving hand and oral to each other? Is that also evil, since it isn't intended for creation of more humans?

[Thinkto urself]

That's very mature of you.

[Smegma]

Morally, what is important is not the victim but the sinner. The two sins are equivalent morally. However governments cannot punish thoughts because they are inherently limited from knowing about them. That's a good thing.

This is where morals and ethics differ. Morals is more an internal schema that a person has while ethics is more external. While it still involves personal affects, its broader. Morally, though, I still think he is at LESS fault than the one who acts out.

[N. Escalona]

N. Escalona, what are your thoughts on homosexuals? You seem so bible ruled that I wouldn't be surprised if you said they're all definitely going to hell/purgatory.

I don't know if homosexuals are going to hell, I try to avoid passing judgment like that. I do believe homosexuality is evil, though if someone prone to homosexual tendencies never acts on them he hasn't done anything wrong, he just has a heavier burden to bear. I do not support governments supporting homosexuality in any way.

And what do you think of a husband and wife giving hand and oral to each other? Is that also evil, since it isn't intended for creation of more humans?

It's not wrong as foreplay. In fact in that office it's often necessary or very helpful in getting things started (not that I would know personally). But if it ends up being the culmination of the sex act, then you're doing it wrong. You've got to end up with the husband climaxing inside his wife. This isn't some arbitrary rule, it's to ensure that the focus is on the other person, not on the pleasure alone. Also to ensure the procreative element.

However, with e.g. oral sex, there's less of a connection. The purpose is often lust and the focus is often pleasure, not the other spouse. It's not inherently wrong, but you've got to be careful with it. I guess hand and oral stimulation is in this way like alcohol. Moderation, and all that.

That's very mature of you.

Who, me?

Morally, what is important is not the victim but the sinner. The two sins are equivalent morally. However governments cannot punish thoughts because they are inherently limited from knowing about them. That's a good thing.

This is where morals and ethics differ. Morals is more an internal schema that a person has while ethics is more external. While it still involves personal affects, its broader. Morally, though, I still think he is at LESS fault than the one who acts out.

Perhaps I'd understand better if you gave a definition of both. Could you give an example of an ethical question that is not also a moral question?

[jrgp]

I do not support governments supporting homosexuality in any way.

Doesn't the US in some states? I'm sure you pay your taxes.

And what do you think of a husband and wife giving hand and oral to each other? Is that also evil, since it isn't intended for creation of more humans?

It's not wrong as foreplay. But if it ends up being the culmination of the sex act, then you're doing it wrong. You've got to end up with the husband climaxing inside his wife. This isn't some arbitrary rule, it's to ensure that the focus is on the other person, not on the pleasure alone.

However, with e.g. oral sex, there's less of a connection. The purpose is often lust and the focus is often pleasure, not the other spouse. It's not inherently wrong, but you've got to be careful with it. Moderation, and all that.

What if it's a married couple doing it to each other just for fun, pleasure, and to show how much you love the other person and how much they love you?

[Smegma]

Perhaps I'd understand better if you gave a definition of both. Could you give an example of an ethical question that is not also a moral question?

Morality is a personal frame of reference, ethical is more of a interpersonal.

[Thinkto urself]

@Escalona mature quote
No, jrgp.

[jrgp]

@Escalona mature quote
No, jrgp.

Who knows. Maybe all of us not agreeing with him might just change his views after a while.

[Splinter-Snake]

I was going to begin arguing about how homosexuality is not a choice, but I'll save that for later.

[The Geologist]

I do not support governments supporting homosexuality in any way.

Doesn't the US in some states? I'm sure you pay your taxes.

He's 16.

It's not wrong as foreplay. In fact in that office it's often necessary or very helpful in getting things started (not that I would know personally). But if it ends up being the culmination of the sex act, then you're doing it wrong. You've got to end up with the husband climaxing inside his wife. This isn't some arbitrary rule, it's to ensure that the focus is on the other person, not on the pleasure alone. Also to ensure the procreative element.

However, with e.g. oral sex, there's less of a connection. The purpose is often lust and the focus is often pleasure, not the other spouse. It's not inherently wrong, but you've got to be careful with it. I guess hand and oral stimulation is in this way like alcohol. Moderation, and all that.

Wait a second...that doesn't ensure anything.  People have sex while thinking of others, to the point of calling out other peoples names at climax.  Condoms are also around these days, so that people can have sex without creating yet another human.  Got a few too many of those already.

These guidelines seem like a poor attempt to deal with modern times using ancient ideologies. 

[jrgp]

I do not support governments supporting homosexuality in any way.

Doesn't the US in some states? I'm sure you pay your taxes.

He's 16.

Well, sales tax at least.

[N. Escalona]

Doesn't the US in some states? I'm sure you pay your taxes.

Since I have a job, I do (or more accurately, my parents pay them for me), but obedience to government is requisite except in extreme circumstances. Imagine if the masses revolted every time their government did something unethical. Governments couldn't exist for more than a few minutes! You've got to weigh the evil caused by not paying your taxes against the evil caused by paying your taxes. Nearly always the subtraction results in paying taxes, though being generally in a bad mood about it and writing letters to congressmen and protesting and all that good stuff.

What if it's a married couple doing it to each other just for fun, pleasure, and to show how much you love the other person and how much they love you?

Sexuality has a unitive element and a procreative element. Lust, for example, fulfills only the procreative, or neither element. Auxiliary sexual stimulation fulfills only the unitive, or neither element. Oral and manual sex are not open to pregnancy, and therefore are perversions of sexuality when they occur on their own. Just like lustful sex is a perversion. Besides, the real deal is more fun anyway.

Morality is a personal frame of reference, ethical is more of a interpersonal.

Would it be accurate to say that morals dictate ethics?

Well, sales tax at least.

9% in Washington state. 

[Smegma]

Would it be accurate to say that morals dictate ethics?

If you're morals said so . From a completely non-biased standpoint, no.

[N. Escalona]

Okay I get it. That's actually a really useful way to use "ethics." I will adopt it now.

[GSx_Major]

New American Standard? You lightweight... Any real religious person would detest a version rewritten in his/her lifetime. I realize the need to adjust to facts and remove errors, but still - editing the words of god must obviously be evil, or...  A necessity.

Anyway, KJV (as well as ASV) says And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Changing to "percieved as" is not a defendable change in terms of readability or religious accuracy (whatever that is...).



(And what about contraceptives?)

[Smegma]

editing the words of god must obviously be evil, or...  A necessity.

Or always correct.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

i once masturbated into my friends cereal when we were on holiday

[N. Escalona]

New American Standard? You lightweight... Any real religious person would detest a version rewritten in his/her lifetime. I realize the need to adjust to facts and remove errors, but still - editing the words of god must obviously be evil, or...  A necessity.

Haha, actually it's Douay-Rheims, translated pretty much directly from the Vulgate. 400 years old good enough for you? I usually prefer older translations just on principle. This particular verse must have been translated identically in the NASV as well. Editing / revising the words of God is generally wrong - translating them with intent of spreading them isn't. Not all of us know Latin Yes, I know the Bible wasn't originally Latin, but the Vulgate is the oldest we've got IIRC.

Anyway, KJV (as well as ASV) says And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Changing to "percieved as" is not a defendable change in terms of readability or religious accuracy (whatever that is...).

Original Latin time: cumque cognovissent se esse nudos is directly translated to "and when they perceived themselves to be naked" I don't know whether "perceive" or "become aware" is a better translation for cognoscere, but my translation's older.

BTW, another relevant verse, Genesis 2:25, right after Eve's creation. "And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed." That implies they knew they were naked. I mean, they weren't blind, they could figure out pretty easily how the football goes through the tire.

(And what about contraceptives?)

Nothing doing. Same principles as I mentioned when talking about the oral sex. The procreative element is missing, so it's a perversion. Usually worse though, because it's possible for the man to accidentally climax in his wife's mouth, etc., but it's pretty hard to accidentally use contraception.

[Smegma]

Knowing is much different than becoming aware.

In fact, perceiving is more akin to awareness than knowledge.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

i once masturbated into my friends cereal when we were on holiday

Leave it to panzer to take the edge off a serious discussion.  I laughed.

And Escalona, I think your idea of sex is just a little off.  As a Christian, I'm sure you believe that we're created physically exactly as God intended.  Any part of us that responds to stimulation is for US.  Masturbation or oral sex or any of the "non-baby-making" stuff isn't sinful! Yes, masturbation is focusing on the self, to some degree, but no more than exercising or eating good food, or even taking medicine when you're sick.  It's natural, and it's acceptable.  Like I said, you're designed to like sexual stimulation.  It's not chance that it happened, and it's not some "forbidden" thing.  It's not a sin to make yourself feel good!

If masturbation CAUSES you to sin, then yeah, definitely drop it.  Drop anything that causes you to sin, even if that thing isn't sinful by itself.  But ultimately it's your body, and it's up to you to decide what to do with it.

EDIT: Just thought of something else.  If it's a sin to ejaculate without the intention of conception, why isn't it a sin for a girl to have her period? That's a perfectly good egg going to waste, isn't it? Wasn't that egg designed solely for the purpose of producing a baby?