PDA

View Full Version : The Sinfulness of self pleasure.



Noir
11-01-2010, 07:08 PM
Given O'donnels been banded about allot was doing some looking about and found this, quiet amazingly stone-age, but given that this is America rather odd things can be pretty populist lol, so what think ye of her stance fellow DPers?


Christine O'Donnell, the new star of the religious right and not a woman to beat about the bush, claims masturbation is a sin. In a non sequitur from the 90s, O'Donnell declared: "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust."

Leaving aside the question of exactly who's being diddled in O'Donnell's equation of beating off with cheating, why has masturbation historically received such a bad press? The Bible says nothing specific about masturbation, although it generally doesn't have much truck with sex for reasons other than procreation, and condemnation of cracking one off may have evolutionary origins: for a race or tribe to grow and gain power, it needs its offspring.

The one constant in the censure of going solo, is that women are rarely, if ever, mentioned. Even O'Donnell seems to think it's only men who are subject to temptation, saying: "You're gonna be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?"

While the medical establishment no longer regards masturbation as unhealthy, the taboos surrounding it remain strong. In 1994, Bill Clinton fired Jocelyn Elders from her role as US surgeon general after she gave it the thumbs-up, saying masturbation was "part of human sexuality".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/17/christine-o-donnell-masturbation

Mr. P
11-01-2010, 10:38 PM
Masturbation will make ya good blind!! So I stopped when I got to the point that I needed glasses.

NightTrain
11-01-2010, 10:48 PM
Masturbation will make ya good blind!! So I stopped when I got to the point that I needed glasses.

My laptop screen is braille.

SassyLady
11-02-2010, 01:30 AM
What? What? I thought it made you deaf.

Abbey Marie
11-02-2010, 09:04 AM
The Bible says nothing specific about masturbation,

Actually, the Bible does say something about it:

Genesis 38:9-10 ESV
But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.

Noir
11-02-2010, 09:10 AM
Actually, the Bible does say something about it:

Genesis 38:9-10 ESV
But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.

Put to death? Good gravy, and people want this to be true =/

Abbey Marie
11-02-2010, 09:13 AM
Put to death? Good gravy, and people want this to be true =/

Apparently your source knows squat about the Bible. You should read it for yourself if you are interested in its contents, no?

Mr. P
11-02-2010, 09:17 AM
Put to death? Good gravy, and people want this to be true =/
I think death was a result of screwing his brothers' wife NOT because of masturbation.

Abbey Marie
11-02-2010, 09:19 AM
I think death was a result of screwing his brothers' wife NOT because of masturbation.

Nope- in fact, there is a verse in the Bible where it is required to sleep with your brother's widow. No time to look for it right now, but I will add it later. Gotta go vote for Christine O'Donnell. :salute:

Noir
11-02-2010, 09:20 AM
Apparently your source knows squat about the Bible. You should read it for yourself if you are interested in its contents, no?

Well in fairness what you quoted wasn't self pleasure, as the man was using his brothers wife, he just wasn't completing the act in his brothers wife.

Noir
11-02-2010, 09:23 AM
Nope- in fact, there is a verse in the Bible where it is required to sleep with your brother's widow. No time to look for it right now, but I will add it later. Gotta go vote for Christine O'Donnell. :salute:

Really? Wow, and people use it for moral guidance :laugh:

Mr. P
11-02-2010, 09:25 AM
Nope- in fact, there is a verse in the Bible where it is required to sleep with your brother's widow. No time to look for it right now, but I will add it later. Gotta go vote for Christine O'Donnell. :salute:
Even if she was beat with an UGLY stick??? That's cruel !!

KarlMarx
11-02-2010, 12:52 PM
Nope- in fact, there is a verse in the Bible where it is required to sleep with your brother's widow. No time to look for it right now, but I will add it later. Gotta go vote for Christine O'Donnell. :salute:

Onan's brother died without having fathered children. The law required Onan to sleep with his brother's widow and get her pregnant. Those children would then be considered his brother's not his own. Onan did sleep with his brother's widow, but be was guilty of coitus interruptus (look it up, I'm trying to keep this as work friendly as possible). For this, the Lord struck him down.

Abbey Marie
11-02-2010, 01:07 PM
Well in fairness what you quoted wasn't self pleasure, as the man was using his brothers wife, he just wasn't completing the act in his brothers wife.

Could have been both, no? ;)

Noir
11-02-2010, 01:20 PM
Onan's brother died without having fathered children. The law required Onan to sleep with his brother's widow and get her pregnant. Those children would then be considered his brother's not his own. Onan did sleep with his brother's widow, but be was guilty of coitus interruptus (look it up, I'm trying to keep this as work friendly as possible). For this, the Lord struck him down.

Yep, and apparently a just punishment for coitus interruptus is for your mortal life to be ended (and then presumably go on to spend eternity in hell) such a just god.


Could have been both, no? ;)

Seems clear to me, but no matter, if I where a fan of the bible I wouldn't be trying to apply such nonsense to as many acts as possible, infact I'd be trying to narrow them done (if not ignore it completely)


I think death was a result of screwing his brothers' wife NOT because of masturbation.

Nope, though this did cross my mind at first, it seems ghat sleeping with his dead brothers wife was the only thing he did that was fine in gods eyes, but the pulling out?... even god has his limits. :laugh:

darin
11-02-2010, 01:57 PM
sometimes God comes-off as a jackass, when folks don't consider things like context and perspective of the author.

DragonStryk72
11-02-2010, 02:26 PM
Put to death? Good gravy, and people want this to be true =/

Actually, there's a little bit more to it than that. God, in one of his rare direct appearances, had commanded him to do so, to beget a child in such manner, as it was necessary at the time. More pointedly, he agreed to do it, then pussied out on it.

Religion says a lot of things are wrong, as do laws, such as speeding, littering, or otherwise. Some sins, though, just aren't as bad as others. Sure, masturbating is a sin, in the same way that yelling "JESUS CHRIST!" is a sin, or "For the love of God!", swearing, arguing with your parents and such are sins.

The line Abbey quoted is the oft misused quote against masturbation, but it's really not about the masturbatory act, it's more about purposely defying one of God's few direct "do this" moments after agreeing to do it.

Noir
11-02-2010, 02:36 PM
Actually, there's a little bit more to it than that. God, in one of his rare direct appearances, had commanded him to do so, to beget a child in such manner, as it was necessary at the time. More pointedly, he agreed to do it, then pussied out on it.

Religion says a lot of things are wrong, as do laws, such as speeding, littering, or otherwise. Some sins, though, just aren't as bad as others. Sure, masturbating is a sin, in the same way that yelling "JESUS CHRIST!" is a sin, or "For the love of God!", swearing, arguing with your parents and such are sins.

The line Abbey quoted is the oft misused quote against masturbation, but it's really not about the masturbatory act, it's more about purposely defying one of God's few direct "do this" moments after agreeing to do it.

I see, in the same way that if god appeared to me and told me to slit my little brothers throat Id be wrong not to do so.
This is what you get when you have a *perfect* being making morally wrong requests. I say good on onan, though personally I would of fathered that he refused to have sex with her at all, but then she may of been well hot ;D

Abbey Marie
11-02-2010, 02:40 PM
Noir's source said the Bible didn't address masturbation, when in fact it did. The fact that context gives the verses their full meaning (as usual) doesn't change that literal fact. Not to say I think it is an important verse in the grand scheme of things.

The important point though, which has kind of gotten lost, is this: I would bet my last dollar that Ms. O'Donnell will not be voting on whether we have the right to masturbate; nor would she want to.

Noir
11-02-2010, 02:44 PM
Noir's source said the Bible didn't address masturbation, when in fact it did. The fact that context gives the verses their full meaning (as usual) doesn't change that literal fact. Not to say I think it is an important verse in the grand scheme of things.

The important point though, which has kind of gotten lost, is this: I would bet my last dollar that Ms. O'Donnell will not be voting on whether we have the right to masturbate; nor would she want to.

DragonStryk (as far as I can tell) doesnt believe it addresses masterbation, but rather only the disobedience of god, would you disagree with that?

Abbey Marie
11-02-2010, 02:47 PM
DragonStryk (as far as I can tell) doesnt believe it addresses masterbation, but rather only the disobedience of god, would you disagree with that?

It addresses both. Thought I'd said that already.

Trigg
11-02-2010, 02:49 PM
O'Donnell is a little wacky if she believes masturbation is a sin.

I think Abby's quote has more to do with disobeying God than it does with masturbation.

Noir
11-02-2010, 03:18 PM
It addresses both. Thought I'd said that already.

Ah right, when you said 'both' earlier I thought you meant self-pleasure and pulling out,
So, from that, you agree that self pleasure is a sin? (given the bible talks about it IYO)

Abbey Marie
11-02-2010, 09:05 PM
Ah right, when you said 'both' earlier I thought you meant self-pleasure and pulling out,
So, from that, you agree that self pleasure is a sin? (given the bible talks about it IYO)

I am not sure, and as I've said, it doesn't seem too important in the grand scheme off things. generally try to stick to New Testament strictures anyway. Do you disagree with my statement that it really won't come up in Congress?

Noir
11-02-2010, 09:20 PM
I am not sure, and as I've said, it doesn't seem too important in the grand scheme off things. generally try to stick to New Testament strictures anyway. Do you disagree with my statement that it really won't come up in Congress?

Well it is kinda important if it's a just reason for a god to strike you dead. And as much as you may want to stick to the NT, presuming you agree that the god of the OT is the same one you can't just shovel the bits that seem a bit weird into the background.

And I don't think it would come up, especially since O'Donnell hasn't got elected.

darin
11-03-2010, 06:39 AM
Well it is kinda important if it's a just reason for a god to strike you dead. And as much as you may want to stick to the NT, presuming you agree that the god of the OT is the same one you can't just shovel the bits that seem a bit weird into the background.

And I don't think it would come up, especially since O'Donnell hasn't got elected.

...it's not a reason for God to kill somebody. The OT is more like...recorded history. The NT explains how folks know God. More than any scripture, knowing God comes first from communicating. ;)

I believe you don't CARE about this issue ONE BIT, Noir. You're simply looking for an outlet to insult and shit-talk something (Religious Faith) you don't care to understand. And...I'm pretty darn at cutting thru the crap to identify the root issues at play. Seriously, am VERY good at it. :)

Noir
11-03-2010, 06:47 AM
...it's not a reason for God to kill somebody. The OT is more like...recorded history. The NT explains how folks know God. More than any scripture, knowing God comes first from communicating. ;)

I believe you don't CARE about this issue ONE BIT, Noir. You're simply looking for an outlet to insult and shit-talk something (Religious Faith) you don't care to understand. And...I'm pretty darn at cutting thru the crap to identify the root issues at play. Seriously, am VERY good at it. :)

Indeed, the recoded history of a god, a god that said to this bloke 'impregnate your dead brothers wife' when he didn't, he was killed by god. Are those not the facts of history as the OT press ts them?

darin
11-03-2010, 07:41 AM
Indeed, the recoded history of a god, a god that said to this bloke 'impregnate your dead brothers wife' when he didn't, he was killed by god. Are those not the facts of history as the OT press ts them?

it's past-tense.

Noir
11-03-2010, 07:45 AM
it's past-tense.

Well yes, history tends to be in the past, what's your point?

darin
11-03-2010, 09:23 AM
Well yes, history tends to be in the past, what's your point?

my point is, it doesn't matter. Everything changed since Christ. That's the beauty of the OT - Nothing there represents our current access to our, and your, creator.

Read things within context - the social climate, the levels of technology, the intended audience, the point of the story, and the perception of the author. When you remove context, you betray the intent of the author.

Noir
11-03-2010, 09:47 AM
my point is, it doesn't matter. Everything changed since Christ. That's the beauty of the OT - Nothing there represents our current access to our, and your, creator.

Read things within context - the social climate, the levels of technology, the intended audience, the point of the story, and the perception of the author. When you remove context, you betray the intent of the author.

Hold the bus, are you saying we should not judge your god for what he did, because of the social climate at the time he made his actions?

gabosaurus
11-03-2010, 11:35 AM
I would type a response to this thread. But I can't see the keyboard. :)

darin
11-03-2010, 04:30 PM
Hold the bus, are you saying we should not judge your god for what he did, because of the social climate at the time he made his actions?

Nope - I'm saying consider the source when it comes to attributing acts to God. Consider all the details involved in what you are reading.

Kathianne
11-03-2010, 05:33 PM
Darin, I'm probably misreading, since I looked at a post or two. Are you saying that the Old Testament is void after the coming of Christ?

darin
11-03-2010, 05:36 PM
Darin, I'm probably misreading, since I looked at a post or two. Are you saying that the Old Testament is void after the coming of Christ?

Define void? Since Christ, the relationship we have with God is NOT how folks held relations with God in the OT. There are certainly lessons in the OT from which to draw wisdom - but there aren't any commands, etc, as far as I know, or specific teachings we should follow.

Noir
11-03-2010, 06:07 PM
Nope - I'm saying consider the source when it comes to attributing acts to God. Consider all the details involved in what you are reading.

So your saying the author of the story said it was god that killed onan when it could of just be natural causes, but it was helpful for the author to attribute the death to god in order to make the masses afraid of gods wrath?

DragonStryk72
11-03-2010, 06:11 PM
I see, in the same way that if god appeared to me and told me to slit my little brothers throat Id be wrong not to do so.
This is what you get when you have a *perfect* being making morally wrong requests. I say good on onan, though personally I would of fathered that he refused to have sex with her at all, but then she may of been well hot ;D

That depends. See, actually people mouth off at God in the Bible, such as Solomon getting into an actual argument with God because God did not want any places of worship and Solomon believed it was needed to really cement the faith, and hell, God pronounced Solomon as the wisest of kings. See, the difference is a set of morals that are stood for, Solomon had his point, whether God liked it or not, and stood strong. Not so in the case of Onan, who meekly agreed then repeatedly played the coward card to get around what he agreed to do.

So, yeah, if you agreed to slit your brother's throat in all sincerity, then, instead of having any real moral stand, go about setting up stage-killing your brother repeatedly to try and get one over on God, then you've officially played the douchebag card, and deserve what you get.

Noir
11-03-2010, 06:19 PM
That depends. See, actually people mouth off at God in the Bible, such as Solomon getting into an actual argument with God because God did not want any places of worship and Solomon believed it was needed to really cement the faith, and hell, God pronounced Solomon as the wisest of kings. See, the difference is a set of morals that are stood for, Solomon had his point, whether God liked it or not, and stood strong. Not so in the case of Onan, who meekly agreed then repeatedly played the coward card to get around what he agreed to do.

So, yeah, if you agreed to slit your brother's throat in all sincerity, then, instead of having any real moral stand, go about setting up stage-killing your brother repeatedly to try and get one over on God, then you've officially played the douchebag card, and deserve what you get.

So if god told me to slit my wee brothers throat would it be moral or not to do so?

Kathianne
11-03-2010, 06:21 PM
Define void? Since Christ, the relationship we have with God is NOT how folks held relations with God in the OT. There are certainly lessons in the OT from which to draw wisdom - but there aren't any commands, etc, as far as I know, or specific teachings we should follow.

Void as in not of importance.

darin
11-03-2010, 06:25 PM
So your saying the author of the story said it was god that killed onan when it could of just be natural causes, but it was helpful for the author to attribute the death to god in order to make the masses afraid of gods wrath?

I'm saying the bible wasn't written 'to be a bible' and if one doesnt understand the components contained therein - the context - one is being short-sighted.


So if god told me to slit my wee brothers throat would it be moral or not to do so?

That's like saying "if the sun turned into the moon..." God would not ask that, so forget it :)



Void as in not of importance.

It's important only to understand the history of God and man's relationship - not important in terms of one's current relationship with God.

Kathianne
11-03-2010, 06:37 PM
I'm saying the bible wasn't written 'to be a bible' and if one doesnt understand the components contained therein - the context - one is being short-sighted.



That's like saying "if the sun turned into the moon..." God would not ask that, so forget it :)




It's important only to understand the history of God and man's relationship - not important in terms of one's current relationship with God.

Got you. God screwed up and sent Jesus to fix the screw up. Perhaps I misunderstood?

Noir
11-03-2010, 06:39 PM
I'm saying the bible wasn't written 'to be a bible' and if one doesnt understand the components contained therein - the context - one is being short-sighted.

Meh, i was told it was the inspired word of god, i guess god wasnt expecting them to put his insirations into a book...

Now then, do you think god killed this bloke or not?


That's like saying "if the sun turned into the moon..." God would not ask that, so forget it :)

Well he did ask yer man to gut his son, unless you've airbrushed that from your 'in context' bible.

darin
11-03-2010, 06:41 PM
Meh, i was told it was the inspired word of god, i guess god wasnt expecting them to put his insirations into a book...

Now then, do you think god killed this bloke or not?



Well he did ask yer man to gut his son, unless you've airbrushed that from your 'in context' bible.

I think God killed him. I think God's methods of dealing with sin was appropriate to those folks.

For somebody who doesn't believe in God, you're kind of a bitch when I tell you something about God you don't agree with...

Kathianne
11-03-2010, 06:44 PM
I think God killed him. I think God's methods of dealing with sin was appropriate to those folks.

For somebody who doesn't believe in God, you're kind of a bitch when I tell you something about God you don't agree with...

Wow. So if I were to listen to you as a voice for religion, you are saying that God killed 'this bloke', Jesus, the son of God, because he, God, screwed up in the Old Testament? (OT to those keeping score.)

Noir
11-03-2010, 06:50 PM
I think God killed him. I think God's methods of dealing with sin was appropriate to those folks.

For somebody who doesn't believe in God, you're kind of a bitch when I tell you something about God you don't agree with...

Well I'm amazed, truly amazed lol, bur whatever ticks your clock.

darin
11-04-2010, 03:44 AM
Wow. So if I were to listen to you as a voice for religion, you are saying that God killed 'this bloke', Jesus, the son of God, because he, God, screwed up in the Old Testament? (OT to those keeping score.)

that's quite a leap Kath.

I'm saying things changed. God didn't kill Jesus. Jesus was born, however, to Die. It wasn't christ's death that mattered so much as his resurrection.

OT - sets the stage for why Christ is needed. Beyond that, the OT provides good lessons in what not to do, but plays little to no part in any capacity of one's relationship with God now. Things have changed. Not my issue - ask God about it.

Kathianne
11-04-2010, 05:37 AM
that's quite a leap Kath.

I'm saying things changed. God didn't kill Jesus. Jesus was born, however, to Die. It wasn't christ's death that mattered so much as his resurrection.

OT - sets the stage for why Christ is needed. Beyond that, the OT provides good lessons in what not to do, but plays little to no part in any capacity of one's relationship with God now. Things have changed. Not my issue - ask God about it.

I think we see 'divine inspiration' a bit differently. However, I do appreciate a bit of insight on those differences that do create divides between Christians. Thank you.

Abbey Marie
11-04-2010, 01:50 PM
Well it is kinda important if it's a just reason for a god to strike you dead. And as much as you may want to stick to the NT, presuming you agree that the god of the OT is the same one you can't just shovel the bits that seem a bit weird into the background.

And I don't think it would come up, especially since O'Donnell hasn't got elected.

So therefore you think it would come up if she had been elected?
My bad, I guess your Parliament discusses and legislates on the topic of masturbation..

Abbey Marie
11-04-2010, 01:58 PM
Wow. So if I were to listen to you as a voice for religion, you are saying that God killed 'this bloke', Jesus, the son of God, because he, God, screwed up in the Old Testament? (OT to those keeping score.)

There are umpteen and ancient and pretty specific references in the OT to the Jesus' eventual coming. Hardly a last minute attempt by God at rectifying a "screwup".

As for Darin being the "voice of religion" I hardly think he has claimed to be that. In fact, I think he is trying to suggest above all, that anyone who wants to understand God read the entire Bible for themselves, (and not with a prejudiced jaundiced view) instead of nitpicking verses that sound juicy.

Noir
11-04-2010, 02:38 PM
So therefore you think it would come up if she had been elected?
My bad, I guess your Parliament discusses and legislates on the topic of masturbation..

Specificly on masturbation? No, but there are plenty of related areas, like sex education in schools, etc where if someone believes that self pleasure is an act against god then that will affect her judgements on such issues, wouldn't you think?

Kathianne
11-04-2010, 03:40 PM
There are umpteen and ancient and pretty specific references in the OT to the Jesus' eventual coming. Hardly a last minute attempt by God at rectifying a "screwup".

As for Darin being the "voice of religion" I hardly think he has claimed to be that. In fact, I think he is trying to suggest above all, that anyone who wants to understand God read the entire Bible for themselves, (and not with a prejudiced jaundiced view) instead of nitpicking verses that sound juicy.

I'm certainly not cherry picking verses, I don't do that. I was addressing whether or not the Old Testament is irrelevant since the coming of Christ. Darin said no, other than the coming of Christ. I disagree, the basis of the New Testament is the Old Testament, IMO.