|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: eternal damnation for a wank?
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
I think it would be highly unlikely, in the current state of knowledge about biology and psychology, that anyone would be barred from communion because of masturbation. If I may be Thomistic for a moment, mortal sin (that is, sin which would require sacramental confession before one may receive communion) requires full reflection and consent of the will. (The entire concept of mortal sin is based on where one's will is turned - it does not imply that sins not in this category are not to be avoided.) Masturbation may still be considered an objective wrong, but I doubt too many individual cases would meet the criteria for 'mortal sin' in the first place.
Sorry to be slow, but do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that even if one mastubates it does not necessarily signify that his will is turned from God, so it may not be a mortal sin? What if a young man gives in to masturbation after reflecting on the fact that it is a mortal sin? And, if this is what we are saying here, does the same reasoning apply to adultery or homosexuality?
I've always thought that the Church's teachings were that, yes, some things are mortal sins. And, yes if you commit them you must abstain from communion until you are reconciled. If you did not have a firm purpose of amendment you could not be properly reconciled - you were "dead in sin." But God is not bound by the sacraments, so we should not despair for the salvation of those who [or whom?] we thought were lost to a certain mortal sin.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
So where do all the children who are concieced with aid of a withdrawal from a sperm bank. Are they to suffer a life long trauma because their father commited a mortal sin into a container.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Does this rule against masturbation apply to women? If a woman has a clitoris by God's design and it has no other purpose.
..is it jealousy that sparked the tradition of clitorectomy? Perhaps I'm wrongly assuming it was a 'man-made' doctrine.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Does this rule against masturbation apply to women? If a woman has a clitoris by God's design and it has no other purpose.
I've heard rumours that the clitoris has other purposes than masturbation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Does this rule against masturbation apply to women? If a woman has a clitoris by God's design and it has no other purpose.
I've heard rumours that the clitoris has other purposes than masturbation.
Perhaps I should have said for no other purpose but to give sexual pleasure? It has more nerve endings than the penis.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
But Ingo, surely eternal damnation is not the irrevocable punishment for masterbation. Is it?
First, if you believe that eternal damnation cannot be the consequence of anything we do, then obviously it would be a different discussion. Let's assume you accept that eternal damnation can be the consequence of some acts. Then second, I will ask you if you think that adultery can lead to eternal damnation, even if the sex is consensual between the adulterers, if no negative physical consequences (STDs, unwanted pregnancy,...) ensue, and if the married partner of the adulterer either does not notice or does not particularly care. In other words, is adultery wrong enough in itself, such that it can deserve eternal damnation even if "nobody gets hurt" physically and it happens in consensual (or at least tolerating) circumstances? If you accept that eternal damnation for this is possible, then third I would put it to you that masturbation simply is such adultery with oneself as partner, and that you've hence already accepted that masturbation can have eternal damnation as consequence.
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
There is no Roman Catholic teaching that sexual acts must be aimed at procreation. A couple who are aged 85 are free to marry, as are people who are unable to bear children at any age.
This somewhat leaves the wrong impression. While it is true that according to the RCC not every sexual act must be aimed at procreation (that is, being explicitly intended to result in children), every sexual act must be open to procreation (that is, the sexual act must be such that children could result if both partners were fertile, and the partners must not have made themselves infertile by artificial means). And while sterility is not an impediment to marriage, complete impotence is:
quote:
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.
§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098.
So marriage is indeed intended for having sex which is open to procreation.
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
If I may be Thomistic for a moment, mortal sin (that is, sin which would require sacramental confession before one may receive communion) requires full reflection and consent of the will. (The entire concept of mortal sin is based on where one's will is turned - it does not imply that sins not in this category are not to be avoided.) Masturbation may still be considered an objective wrong, but I doubt too many individual cases would meet the criteria for 'mortal sin' in the first place.
The RCC says that masturbation is a grave matter. Most RCs, and a good many outside of the RCC, know that. At least a mature RC then usually cannot claim lack of full knowledge. If he's not willing to accept the simple statement, he could and should inform his conscience further (and abstain till he has done so). So it all hangs on complete consent. We can easily sin knowing full well that we are sinning. And for this to happen it is not at all necessary that the sin is right in front of our mind as sin, while we sin. Indeed, the most common psychological mechanism is precisely to set aside and ignore what knowledge we have while sinning. All our actions are generally assumed to have our complete consent simply by virtue of us doing them.
Lack of complete consent can come from external or internal forces. In masturbation, there often are no strong external forces. So what internal forces could there be? It is not merely that one has sexual desires, it can be demanded that one has some control over one's desires. Nobody thinks adultery is excused simply because the sexual partner is desirable. The possible constraints have been listed from the CCC above. For an informed RC adult they basically boil down to some form of addiction, be it an addiction to masturbation itself ("acquired habit") or to its effects (relieving "conditions of anxiety").
I think then it would be helpful if we called a spade a spade and stated that a good many RCs are simply addicted to masturbation, and that their sin in masturbating is not mortal because of that. Putting it like that leaves a lot less room for complacency. For people nowadays fear addiction in the way they should fear sin...
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
what is the RC position on people achieving sexual satisfaction through masturbation who are incapable of child-bearing (i.e., post-menopausal, or infertile)? Are such people sinners for masturbating to orgasm? The seed wouldn't be wasted if procreation were impossible anyway.
Let me put it this way: I can find that the purpose of eating is to maintain the energy levels of my body, and that the pleasure I get from eating good food is ordered towards this purpose (by nature I feel this pleasure so that I eat). If I eat and then vomit it all out, so that I can eat some more - as the Romans did - I'm doing something sinful: I'm now ignoring the original purpose of eating - maintaining my life - and only try to maximize the pleasure. Assume that I have some disease of the stomach that makes it impossible for me to extract nutrients from food. I'm fed exclusively intravenously. Nevertheless I desire eating food, doing so does not harm me (it passes through without uptake), and I enjoy eating food like everyone else. Is it immoral for me to eat (assume there's plenty of food to go around)? No. Is it immoral for me to eat and throw up to eat more? Yes. Nothing has changed. While the analysis of morality is based on the general function, individual malfunction does not change morality. In natural moral law, an act is per se moral, neutral, or immoral, it has an objective moral status itself. Analysis of function is a means to find that moral status, it's not a pre-condition for it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by New Yorker:
Sorry to be slow, but do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that even if one mastubates it does not necessarily signify that his will is turned from God, so it may not be a mortal sin? What if a young man gives in to masturbation after reflecting on the fact that it is a mortal sin? And, if this is what we are saying here, does the same reasoning apply to adultery or homosexuality?
So, if I reflected one the observation that gratuitously posting mean things in Hell is a turning away from God's will, would I then have to be withheld from communion until I repented?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
In haste - I reply to New Yorker:
Adultery is a violation of a sacred covenant in marriage. (As I stated earlier, I believe that sexual morality, prohibiting adultery or fornication for example, is very positive - not 'do this and you go to hell,' but 'there is such esteem for this covenant that sexual relations are a part of commitment in marriage, and therefore belonging to this relationship alone.') I believe that cases of adultery would be unlikely not to involve (to put it crudely) some planning - and that use of the will is most likely to be involved.
Masturbation can be a tranquilizer of sorts, a means to relieve strong physical discomfort, a symptom of depression, a desperate action when hormones are through the roof and there is no outlet. Personally, I do not think that masturbation would have been considered 'grave matter' in the first place, had it not been for the incorrect suppositions about biology (such as thinking it 'spilt' souls) and lack of knowledge of human psychology and sexuality in the first place. But I do think that, to a far greater extent than cases of adultery (for example), there is likely to be insufficient reflection and consent even if one believes masturbation to be a mortal sin. As well, the more one agonises over and dwells on this, the more intense the desire can become.
Adultery involves injustice, a violation of a sacred commitment, disregard for the destruction that it can cause to a marriage or family. Masturbation has none of those elements - though I do admit the possibility that it can be part of larger problems which are sinful or distractions which can hamper the life of prayer and so forth.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me put it this way: ... While the analysis of morality is based on the general function, individual malfunction does not change morality. In natural moral law, an act is per se moral, neutral, or immoral, it has an objective moral status itself. Analysis of function is a means to find that moral status, it's not a pre-condition for it.
Thank you for this- a very clear and helpful explanation, which makes perfect sense.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would put it to you that masturbation simply is such adultery with oneself as partner,
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
As this is clearly and obviously nonsense, all the other stuff you wrote that supposedly depends on it can convenioently be skipped.
And I hope your church doesn't encourage youi to say all this stuff to teenagers or children.
(It was Mendelsohn. They played some proper Bach soon afterwards. The contrast betweent he sweet reason of Reformed religion and this oppressive teaching has rarely felt stronger.)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Does this rule against masturbation apply to women? If a woman has a clitoris by God's design and it has no other purpose.
I've heard rumours that the clitoris has other purposes than masturbation.
The best way to find out would be ask the clitoris directly.
The problem is, has anyone found one?
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
The best way to find out would be ask the clitoris directly.
The problem is, has anyone found one?
I thought I saw one in the back yard once, but it was just a rock.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
The best way to find out would be ask the clitoris directly.
The problem is, has anyone found one?
I thought I saw one in the back yard once, but it was just a rock.
I wonder- is a clitoris like a 'silver ting thing'?
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
I meant 'silver ring thing' ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AffirmingCatholic
Shipmate
# 10586
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Masturbation can be a tranquilizer of sorts, a means to relieve strong physical discomfort, a symptom of depression, a desperate action when hormones are through the roof and there is no outlet.
And also, for men, frequent ejaculation is an important part of prostate health. Men who ejaculate daily are much less likely to develop prostate cancer than those who don't.
--------------------
Ama, et fac quod vis
Posts: 161 | From: Kinston, NC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AffirmingCatholic:
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Masturbation can be a tranquilizer of sorts, a means to relieve strong physical discomfort, a symptom of depression, a desperate action when hormones are through the roof and there is no outlet.
And also, for men, frequent ejaculation is an important part of prostate health. Men who ejaculate daily are much less likely to develop prostate cancer than those who don't.
Ah, that's my excuse, too! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
I meant 'silver ring thing'
I just assumed it was something I was ignorant of -- like so much about sex!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Any non-procreative sexual act, including oral and anal sex between heterosexual married couples, is immoral because it does not lead to procreation.
Where does this idea come from?
Frustrated celibate priests who are jealous of the fun other people might be having.
The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity also comes from this non-Biblical stable. Can't have her enjoying sex can we?
That has to be the oldest of chestnuts ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AffirmingCatholic:
[snip] Men who ejaculate daily are much less likely to develop prostate cancer than those who don't.
Fantastic! But how can this be achieved with sin?
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by AffirmingCatholic:
[snip] Men who ejaculate daily are much less likely to develop prostate cancer than those who don't.
Fantastic! But how can this be achieved with sin?
Of goodness sake! I mean 'without sin'!
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Damn you, Komensky, for noticing that before I could reply!
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by IngoB: quote:
I would put it to you that masturbation simply is such adultery with oneself as partner
Only if one is married. If one is single, it's fornication with oneself as partner. And actually, I'm gay, so that would make it sodomy with myself as partner.
A little precision, please.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Woah, Addy! Jackpot!
I dunno how you can get out of bed in the morning*... one wank and you are confined to Hell three times over, unredeemable by any amount of Mass intentions and individual offerings of suffering.
* cof! From depression.
[ETA: That's adultery against future partners, fornication and sodomy!]
[ 22. June 2007, 16:32: Message edited by: Jimmy B ]
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
Woah, Addy! Jackpot!
I dunno how you can get out of bed in the morning*... one wank and you are confined to Hell three times over, unredeemable by any amount of Mass intentions and individual offerings of suffering.
* cof! From depression.
[ETA: That's adultery against future partners, fornication and sodomy!]
I know. Life sucks. Now I learn that frequent ejaculation is an essential element of prostate health, so not masturbating is essentially a long, slow, attempted suicide, which the RCC also defines as a grave sin.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't....
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Wow.
This entire thread is a discussion in why to be an atheist/nontheist. Or at least minimally a Protestant based on IngoBs posts alone. But I digress.
This Christian fascination with what people do in their own bedrooms is sick IMO. It is also a big fat bunch steaming pile of bullshit. Any psychologist or preist can tell you (if they were allowed to), if we all could see what happens behind our neighbor's/friend's/etc. closed doors there would be NOTHING sexually deviant.
The way you can tell someone is lying about sex, masturbation, adultery, pornography, etc. is that their lips (or keyboard) are moving. There maybe exceptions to that rule. Those exceptions are probably NOT the ones that are so hung up about it. The Christians with the baggage about sex are probably amongst the kinkiest, dirtiest, screw-anything that walks, wank-every-hour buggers on the planet.
I could be wrong.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Now I learn that frequent ejaculation is an essential element of prostate health, so not masturbating is essentially a long, slow, attempted suicide, which the RCC also defines as a grave sin.
Even if that would be well established scientific fact, one still may not do evil (masturbation) to achieve good (longer life), as I'm sure you know.
BTW, it's not exactly impossible to have daily sex with one's spouse. Improbable, I will admit, but not impossible.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The Christians with the baggage about sex are probably amongst the kinkiest, dirtiest, screw-anything that walks, wank-every-hour buggers on the planet.
You wouldn't be giving us a peek into your fantasy life there would you MG? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Having a Christian background and being nominally Christian right now, I am mystified by the whole masturbation is sin debate. It bewilders me that anyone who follows a guy called Jesus who was concerned with the big stuff and didn't speak a word on sex at all (except to comment to a woman who had had a few partners) should be so hung up on what a person does with their hand in the privacy of their own home. Sheesh!
Now wanking in public ... that's another matter altogether! ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
But seriously. I reckon masturbation is only a problem when it becomes obsessive: when a person finds that it is preferable on a majority of occasions to having sex with another person. But I'd say that about anything, really: drink, drugs, shopping ...
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Now I learn that frequent ejaculation is an essential element of prostate health, so not masturbating is essentially a long, slow, attempted suicide, which the RCC also defines as a grave sin.
Even if that would be well established scientific fact, one still may not do evil (masturbation) to achieve good (longer life), as I'm sure you know.
BTW, it's not exactly impossible to have daily sex with one's spouse. Improbable, I will admit, but not impossible.
Well, impossible if one is gay and trying to obey the teachings of the RCC .
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Coming back from the Hell thread, I think Mechtilde made a good point that it changes from normal human biochemistry into lust when you choose to cultivate it.
Of course, not cultivating this particular weed is one thing.
Destroying the entire garden by endeavoring to uproot the weed with a backhoe is another...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Honestly, folks, the RCC's pronouncments on jerking off and all other matters sexual reads like the fine print on the credit card application defining the terms and conditions under which the company will issue you the card!
May I refer my shipmates to the now classic episode of Seinfeld in which Jerry, George, Kramer, and Elaine attempt to forego wanking!
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mechtilde
Shipmate
# 12563
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Of course, not cultivating this particular weed is one thing.
Destroying the entire garden by endeavoring to uproot the weed with a backhoe is another...
Yes, that nicely captures the problem: Jesus warned us about this one temptation, and we built this whole superstructure of guilt, shame and neurosis on top of it. I don't see a net improvement here. Of course, it doesn't follow that we should blow off what Jesus said. So not fantasizing about real, existing people is one answer. But...
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
If i spend a great deal of time and effort constructing an idealized vision of voluptuous womanhood in my head, one that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on reality, and dream of doing unspeakable things to it every single night...that's somehow better
You have a point there. It's probably better than doing the same with images of your wife's best friend. But I acknowledge that non-people fantasies aren't necessarily harmless, though I believe mine are.
--------------------
"Once one has seen God, what is the remedy?"
Sylvia Plath, "Mystic"
Posts: 517 | From: The cloud of unknowing | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The Christians with the baggage about sex are probably amongst the kinkiest, dirtiest, screw-anything that walks, wank-every-hour buggers on the planet.
You wouldn't be giving us a peek into your fantasy life there would you MG?
I'm okay talking about my sex life, no hang ups here. Are you really sure you want to know?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you accept that eternal damnation for this is possible, then third I would put it to you that masturbation simply is such adultery with oneself as partner, and that you've hence already accepted that masturbation can have eternal damnation as consequence.
This reasoning reminds me of the frustration I used to feel when, as a univeristy lecturer, I used to watch medical students carefully and mediculously work through a problem in mathematical physiology. No step in the calculation would be evidently defective, and yet somehow students could end up with a bizarrely improbably answer. Like calculating a quantity that should be 20 milligrams as 20 megatons.
If you can reason your way to a justification of masturbation being a mortal sin, you've done the logical equivalent of misplacing a decimal point.
Because a claim that masturbation is gravely sinful is errant nonsense, such an assertion brings the whole of the RCC's pronouncements on sexual ethics into disrepute, which is a very serious consequence indeed.
Why, for example, should anyone be inclined to believe a claim that (say) abortion is unethical, if it comes from the same people who brought you wamking-as-a-mortal-sin? It makes the church look an ass.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Very well said.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
This reasoning reminds me of the frustration I used to feel when, as a univeristy lecturer, I used to watch medical students carefully and mediculously work through a problem in mathematical physiology. No step in the calculation would be evidently defective, and yet somehow students could end up with a bizarrely improbably answer. Like calculating a quantity that should be 20 milligrams as 20 megatons.
If you can reason your way to a justification of masturbation being a mortal sin, you've done the logical equivalent of misplacing a decimal point.
In making this analogy, you bring out a very important point. The reason why you know that the students have it wrong is that you have a basic intuitive understanding of what the answer should be like. You have a ballpark estimate: while you could not say without checking whether 21 or 22 grams is the answer, you certainly know that 20 megatons is wrong.
That masturbation is not a grave sin, indeed cannot be a grave sin, is for most people not really a reasoned position from some first moral principles. It's a moral ballpark estimate based on vague sentiments. Whatever may have lead to the conclusion that masturbation is a grave sin simply must be wrong, and all that would remain is to find the error. A task that is supposedly straightforward, but too tedious to attempt.
However, what would happen if you marked down that 20 megatons answer and some medical student challenged that mark? Let's say that refuting the answer it's not as simple as saying "Well, that would exceeds the total body mass, doesn't it?" For the moral evaluation of masturbation as gravely sinful cannot be dismissed by simply pointing to some known fact (if it can, state that fact). I would assume that you would feel obliged to work through the math of the student to find the error.
But if you can't find any error upon trying, what then? Are you going to tell the student: "I know you are wrong, though I can't prove it, so you get the bad mark anyway." Or are you going to at least take away the bad mark for this result, even if you don't admit that the student was right and your ballpark estimate was wrong?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
...All of which seems to suggest that the burden of proof rests with the person trying to show that some class of actions is wrong. Which seems a rather curious view.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For the moral evaluation of masturbation as gravely sinful cannot be dismissed by simply pointing to some known fact (if it can, state that fact).
It is not physically harmful, may even be beneficial, and any emotional damage is purely as a result of violating the contested prohibtion.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It is not physically harmful, may even be beneficial, and any emotional damage is purely as a result of violating the contested prohibtion.
I disagree strongly concerning emotional damage, as mentioned above, but even if that were so - so what? If I have a consensual "one night stand" with some other woman besides my wife - with no physical consequences, my wife never finds out, and I feel OK about it - is that adultery moral simply because it caused nobody obvious harm?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, what would happen if you marked down that 20 megatons answer and some medical student challenged that mark? Let's say that refuting the answer it's not as simple as saying "Well, that would exceeds the total body mass, doesn't it?" For the moral evaluation of masturbation as gravely sinful cannot be dismissed by simply pointing to some known fact (if it can, state that fact). I would assume that you would feel obliged to work through the math of the student to find the error.
The difference is an error in math can be measured highly accurately. The error in ethical/religious "calculations" by the RC cannot. Those that would blindly follow the church (any church) or other religious conviction with no thought to the outcomes of their teachings and assert them over other human beings are as guilty of (ethical) error as a math teacher willingly teaching a megaton point of error.
The RC church is guilty of promoting all kinds of ethical policies that hurt people and society (birth control being a HUGE one) and the moral position of thoughtful catholics should be to disobey. It sure seems to be that most of them have already figured this out based on the news.
Wanking is a harmless relief. One can do it perfectly fine imagining one's partner, as someone else, rendering the whole "adultery" thing as assinine as it is. In addition, the partner may need a break, be sick, be being taken care of, whatever, and the partner is in moral keeping with the ailing partner by doing it.
Only the idiotic church could assume that the situation offends the gods, even in the face of cooperation between partners, and render it a moral issue or worse a sin. The Golden Rule was adhered to, why the fuck would the gods care? Oh yes, because the thoughts of the gods were arbitrarily interpreted by hacks over a thousand years ago, and reinforced by dirty old men (and interestingly it is men) that this should be controlled. Of course, "because the gods will it". Riiiight.
As others have pointed out, there are very real issues health-wise and relationship-wise where wanking (as well as condoms/birth control) is a Good. As such, any church that advocates that position should be avoided.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
Does anybody know what the Anglican, Adventist, Morom, JW, Brethern, etc take is on this subject is?.
[ 22. June 2007, 21:10: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vikki Pollard
Shipmate
# 5548
|
Posted
Is a moral ballpark where you put your testicles whilst wanking?
Hey gals, I think we've found a loophole in our favour at last!
All together now:
WE don't spill sperm!!
--------------------
"I don't get all this fuss about global warming, Miss. Why doesn't the Government just knock down all the f**king greenhouses?" (One of my slightly less bright 15 year old pupils)
Posts: 5695 | From: The Far Side | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It is not physically harmful, may even be beneficial, and any emotional damage is purely as a result of violating the contested prohibtion.
I disagree strongly concerning emotional damage, as mentioned above, but even if that were so - so what? If I have a consensual "one night stand" with some other woman besides my wife - with no physical consequences, my wife never finds out, and I feel OK about it - is that adultery moral simply because it caused nobody obvious harm?
You would be aware of betraying your wife, thereby impacting on your relationship with her. Potentionally doing emotional damage to your one night stand - if she fell for you for example.
Point about masturbation is that it really doesn't have that impact on another person. Given that I, as a female, can not jepardize any gametes and I have no partner - what exactly is the problem ?
[ 22. June 2007, 21:29: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vikki Pollard
Shipmate
# 5548
|
Posted
Can I just check out that it's still okay to scratch my back even if I enjoy it? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"I don't get all this fuss about global warming, Miss. Why doesn't the Government just knock down all the f**king greenhouses?" (One of my slightly less bright 15 year old pupils)
Posts: 5695 | From: The Far Side | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Doubleposting in reply to IngoB, in reaction to your link, to say that the issue of pornography is a different moral issue and certainly not inevitably involved with masturbation.
Also, most people do not fantasis about child birth whilst making love - this is one reason why children actually get born. Cos a woman fantasing about actual childbirth is not letting any object up that opening. (Way to give yourself vaginismus ...)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Does anybody know what the Anglican, Adventist, Morom, JW, Brethern, etc take is on this subject is?.
Could you just clear up for me, whether you mean Mormons, or morons?
Thanks PB4S
--------------------
Oinkster
"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)
Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Does anybody know what the Anglican, Adventist, Morom, JW, Brethern, etc take is on this subject is?.
Well the British Quaker take, is not closely specified, but is basically - one should be true to one's own leading - and this:
"We have then to reject the idea that there is anything necessarily sinful about sexual activity. A better understanding of the nature and value of myth, and a more scientific approach to problems of human behaviour, have delivered many Christians from this oppressive and destructive idea. Sexual activity is essentially neither good nor evil; it is a normal biological activity which, like most other human activities, can be indulged in destructively or creatively.
Further, if we take impulses and experiences that are potentially wholesome and in a large measure unavoidable and characterize those as sinful, we create a great volume of unnecessary guilt and an explosive tension within the personality. When, as so often happens, the impulse breaks through the restriction, it does so with a ruthlessness and destructive energy that might not otherwise have been there. A distorted Christianity must bear some of the blame for the sexual disorders of society.
...
What then is chastity? It is the antithesis of what was recently described to one of us as “the hire purchase attitude of this age”—the attitude that implies: “I want it now and I must have it. I will pay later—perhaps—if I can”. It is not rigid restraint nor refusal to be involved; it is not arid self-discipline nor living according to a moral pattern. It is a wholeness of personality, courtesy and charity, sincerity and purity of heart. It is not necessarily measured in physical terms; it is a total absence of exploitation; it is as necessary a part of marriage as of a single life."
From Toward a Quaker View of Sex
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
What about masturbation with your spouse there to 'help'. Is that any different morally according to the RCC?
Makes me glad I'm not a Catholic: - quite often my spouse needs to withdraw and have a wank in order to get to his climax, and of course I try to help him along. The alternative would be frustration for both of us (and yes, that's the way it used to be for us, and I can assure you this is MILES better). Are you really condemning all men who suffer with this problem (and I understand its not that uncommon) to hell for trying to have sex with their wives?!!!
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Does anybody know what the Anglican, Adventist, Morom, JW, Brethern, etc take is on this subject is?.
Anglican? Sin.In the 1960s, standard confirmation books like 'In His Presence' had sections for self-examination before communion or confession with questions lile, 'Have I been impure - on my own? with others?
I felt it was better to be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
