|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: eternal damnation for a wank?
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And why are you always talking about men masturbating going off their wives and not applying the same rule to masturbating women not wanting sex with their husbands? That seems perhaps less unlikely to me. It is generally assumed that men are keener on sex (with their wives or anyone else) than women are. It is generally assumed that women find it much more difficult to get sexual pleasure out of penetrative sex then men do, and mostly don't regularly have orgasms during or as a direct result of it. I have no idea if anyone really knows the truth of either of those notions but both seem to be common wisdom.
Well, common wisdom also says that women do regularly have sex with their husbands. So, if these average women masturbate, it clearly doesn't put them off the mediocre sex they have.
--------------------
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
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
When one gets to my age(80)mutual masturbation is about the nearest thing you can get to sex, its either that or nothing. Is that wrong between husband and wife, I sincerely hope not!!!
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It might, alternatively, be ... (b.) a lot of Christian sexual ethics falls under revealed, rather than natural, law (and so, one wouldn't expect the general population's consciences to be formed in accordance with it)
I made that very point to Papio above, but I do not think that this is an alternative to what I suggested. Rather it is the result, at least effectively if not principally, of the on average strong darkening of our intellect with regards to sex.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If I eat the ticket, I can no longer show it to the guard. Masturbation, however, does not prevent procreation within the context of a lifelong monogamous relationship. (Assuming such to be the purpose of sex.)
That's like saying that because you have another ticket in your pocket, eating the first ticket is not abusing it. Which is an "utilitarian" way of viewing things, to which I however do not agree at all concerning morals. That is, in the analogy I would still call eating a ticket abusing its purpose, no matter how many more tickets one may have. The analysis of the function of one ticket merely allows me to determine what is use and what is abuse of a ticket. But it does not follow that maintaining this function otherwise (e.g., with a replacement ticket) makes destroying the proper function of a ticket a less abusive act.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And is still seems very strange to me that you are arguing as if the point of sex in marriage is sexual pleasure of the orgasm sort. so that masturbation must be banned.
I'm not sure what you are reading there, but it certainly is not an argument I wrote.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And why are you always talking about men masturbating going off their wives and not applying the same rule to masturbating women not wanting sex with their husbands?
I have not made a conscious distinction by gender in my arguments about the morality of masturbation. If I tend to write from a male perspective concerning the "psychology" of masturbation, this is merely due to the fact that I'm a man and have masturbated. Generalizing from myself and what I see and hear in public related to male masturbation is enough of a leap.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, polygamy is clealy morally licit according to Scripture. It is nowhere condemned and many polygamists are approved of, including Abraham and Moses. That does not mean it is licit for us now of course. I'll stick by Scripture rather than the traditions of your denomination.
And whatever made polygamy morally illicit for us now, if that is not in scripture and you will stick to scripture rather than to our shared tradition (monogamy is certainly pre-Protestant, indeed pre-Christ in the Jewish tradition)? This makes no sense whatsoever.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It is far from pointless because you haven't shown that the end - pleasure - is evil.
Pleasure per se is not an evil, but rather a good. That's why we call it pleasure, rather than pain. However, we were talking about fantasizing about sex as means for masturbation, not about masturbation as means for pleasure! My point was that discussing whether fantasizing about sex can be good is sort of pointless if, as I assert, its end masturbation is evil anyhow. As far as masturbation for pleasure is concerned, in that case the end is good, but the means is evil.
And all that guff about celibate priests trying to spread their pain is allowing you to conveniently ignore the question whether mortification of the flesh (Rom 8:13, Coll 3:5, Gal 5:24, 1 Cor 9:27, etc.) could possibly have something to do with not masturbating.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How can you say that someone who masturbates is not "taking up the cross"?
To say that masturbating itself is picking up a cross is just silly. Not being able to have sex with a woman, OK, that's a cross for most men. And you may wish to argue that masturbation is a licit means to make the load of that cross lighter. But that's lighter, not heavier, irrespective of the morality of this means.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But you aren't claiming that married people in general should abandon sex with their partners as part of Jesus's burden are you? Or that children should leave their parents or parents desert their children.
To the contrary, where this is necessary to follow Christ, I claim just that. It just so happens that it is not usually necessary. (As a personal aside, while I'm no martyr and probably compromise more than I should, my way to Christ was and is seriously risky concerning my closest relationships.)
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is it sinful to stand on a packing case? To use a spoon to change a bicycle tyre? This seems such an un-natural idea of what sin is, as well as an un-Biblical one.
Your examples seem stupid rather than immoral, but that's precisely because we consider these acts free from any moral context. If the life of a person depended on my arrival, and I chose to change my flat bicycle tire with a spoon in spite of having access to proper tools, would that be immoral? Sure it would be. In this case we had to "add" a moral context. But do actions exist that automatically have a moral context? They sure do, taking a human life is an example. The only question that remains is then whether sex is an act which also automatically has a moral context, or not. I say it has.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Surely people don't go to a prostitute just to get their "genitals stimulated for sexual pleasure"? If that was all then they would simply masturbate. Cheaper, safer, easier, quicker. It can't be just for genital stimulation, any more than going to the pub is just for getting alcohol down you - if that was all you wanted you could buy a bottle cheap and drink it quickly. There has to be some element of social interaction in it, even iof it is only some weird pretence.
Well, yes. In fact people do not go to prostitutes merely for genital stimulation, but rather they seek genital stimulation which pretends in the flesh to be like sex is supposed to be with a partner, without actually having to (or in some cases: being able to) maintain a relationship with that partner. The pay in money and health risk for realizing in the flesh just what watching porn and/or fantasizing typically does in masturbation. Prostitution relates to masturbation a bit like the play relates to the script, but in fact the play is rotten because the script is.
I'm not sure why you find my simple point so hard to understand. Sex is supposed to embody a particular kind of relationship in a particular way. Misusing the faculties we've been given by God for that purposse is sinful. The sins differ according to what one actually does with those faculties, sure, but that does not change the principle reason why this is a sin: that one uses the faculties otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And I still think its odd that you keep on coming back to genital stimulation as somehow the point of sex, and by implication the point of marriage. That seems very un-catholic to me. And even un-Christian.
I point out what goes wrong in sexual sin, and you claim that therefore I think that sex is essentially about that which can go wrong. Which is as nonsensical as claiming that a car is essentially about tires, because it can have a flat.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It might, alternatively, be ... (b.) a lot of Christian sexual ethics falls under revealed, rather than natural, law (and so, one wouldn't expect the general population's consciences to be formed in accordance with it)
I made that very point to Papio above, but I do not think that this is an alternative to what I suggested. Rather it is the result, at least effectively if not principally, of the on average strong darkening of our intellect with regards to sex.
It needn't be. It might just be the case that there are some things which would not be inimical to a purely human good, but which cannot be reconciled with being a member of the sacramental community of the Church. I'm thinking here of issues around marriage in particular.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thus I can only convince you that my position is not self-contradictory and unreasonable given my premises
Don't worry. I didn't think, or intend to suggest, that you were being either unreasonable or stupid but merely advancing an argument that fails to "connect" with me. I am suspicious of natural law arguments concerning sex, masturbation, homosexuality etc because they are usually contrary to what I feel to be right and appropriate, because masturbation and homosexuality do not in the least bit feel immoral or evil to me personally and nor do I, as I am not a Christian, share the same starting blocks as you do.
quote:
but I cannot by the force of argument make you agree with me in this case.
Given, as we have agreed, that we are approaching this with very different and mutually exclusive assumptions, and that neither of our sets of assumption can be proven to a sceptic by logical argument, I think you are right about this.
However, thank you for enlightening me as to what those who believe in Christian revelation and natural law argument have to say concerning masturbation. I have learnt something by that, at least.
So that we can not argue past each other in a fruitless excercise, I agree to disagree. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It needn't be. It might just be the case that there are some things which would not be inimical to a purely human good, but which cannot be reconciled with being a member of the sacramental community of the Church. I'm thinking here of issues around marriage in particular.
I'm not sure that post-fall one can talk about a "purely human good" which stands apart from the "sacramental community of the Church". Just as I'm not sure that one can talk about a "purely human good" that stands apart from the grace-filled friendship with God pre-fall. But this may be material for a new thread?
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eternal damnation, punishment, oblivion for being human on both sides of the family.
I wouldn't start the debate, young master, from here.
Autoerotic depravity is just one tiny indicator of our total depravity. We're damned by infinite, perfect, holy righteousness. Guilty, condemned for merely breathing. For imperfection.
We're all rebels. Liars. Thieves. Adulterers. Murderers. Why worry about a mere pecadillo, a zit when when you have bone cancer?
And when you appreciate what Jesus has done for you, why wank?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
I'm sorry, but OP header sounds like a man selling his wares in a bazaar. "Eternal damnation....for a wank!" "Eternal damnation, anyone?" "Eternal damnation for a wank!"
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
When one gets to my age(80)mutual masturbation is about the nearest thing you can get to sex, its either that or nothing. Is that wrong between husband and wife, I sincerely hope not!!!
If it's mutual, then I wouldn't call it masturbation at all, Barrea. I would just call that making love.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, common wisdom also says that women do regularly have sex with their husbands. So, if these average women masturbate, it clearly doesn't put them off the mediocre sex they have.
And you know the average woman has mediocre sex ... how?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
When one gets to my age(80)mutual masturbation is about the nearest thing you can get to sex, its either that or nothing. Is that wrong between husband and wife, I sincerely hope not!!!
If it's mutual, then I wouldn't call it masturbation at all, Barrea. I would just call that making love.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
Yes it sounds better ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Misusing the faculties we've been given by God for that purposse is sinful. The sins differ according to what one actually does with those faculties, sure, but that does not change the principle reason why this is a sin: that one uses the faculties otherwise.
I'm sure a more philosophically-equipped Shipmate will be along shortly to explain things to me, but I'm still kind of struggling with this idea that faculties (or cutlery) should only be used for their "intended" purpose.
Take skin. What is the purpose of skin? It's our largest organ. It protects us, yet it is soft and flexible. It keeps us in and it keeps stuff out. It helps us sense our environment at the same time as it protects us from the environment. It allows us to interact with our environment at the same time as it separates us from our environment. ETA: There's a lot of contradictory qualities and properties there.
What are feet for? For walking, evidently. Is it sinful to dance or stomp grapes or pop balloons with them? Hands are even more versatile, hence this thread. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
And I think I completely missed the point of the spoon story. I was interpreting it as needing to go somewhere on the bike, having a flat, and having no tire levers. Of course I'd use spoons to change the tire so I could ride off. To me, that's as much a no-brainer as Jesus healing on the Sabbath.
Anyway, as far as the OP goes, surely some wankers will get off the hook because of this (quoted earlier by Manx Taffy)?
quote:
... one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.
OliviaG
PS w/TMI: If I didn't occasionally wank* when supremely stressed, I'd ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) .
*Can women be said to wank?
[ 28. June 2007, 18:48: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I'm still kind of struggling with this idea that faculties (or cutlery) should only be used for their "intended" purpose.
I don't get that either.
Besides, if single men don't masturbate, they increase their risk of prostate cancer.
[ 28. June 2007, 19:25: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Clearly the intended purpose of male ejaculation is prostate health. All of this stuff about pleasure and procreation and love-and-relationship is merely a nice by-product.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Clearly the intended purpose of male ejaculation is prostate health. All of this stuff about pleasure and procreation and love-and-relationship is merely a nice by-product.
What a good way to miss my point.
How does anyone know that the "intended" purpose of ejaculation is pregnancy, and only pregnancy. Seems like horseshit to me if you don't mind my saying so, and even if you do.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You clearly took my post as sarcasm against your position, rather than against IngoB's, as it was intended. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Martin, nice to see you - but I honestly think you should read, perhaps, Julian of Norwich, Evelyn Underhill, James Alison... anyone other than whosoever's works gave you such a miserable attitude towards human nature. Nonetheless, I have to agree that people fret much about the peccadilloes and ignore the much more serious matters.
This is general, not directed at Martin: It amazes me that this topic is running to five pages already. I'd love to see the day that we so intensely studied, perhaps, the Eucharist, the Trinity, the parousia...
I doubt there are any female Ship mates aiming for perpetual celibacy, but, if so, a word of warning. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Honest, healthy acceptance of one's sexuality is essential. However, wanking is not always a means to the sort of relief which apparently comes to some of the opposite gender. Manual stimulation well may not lead to a release - because, in female terms, it tends to signal "we're just getting started." (Best not to start what one cannot finish - and also to remember that the heights of pleasure celibates can stir up in imagination, where everything is thrills and no one grunts, sweats, and so forth, are self defeating.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Yes it sounds better
Good on you, old boy! Glad to see that the older Shipmates are still keeping their end up
(PS In the interests of furthering my reputation for WTMI, let me just add that you're a lucky fellow too: my wife won't come anywhere near mine without her gardening gloves on - something about wanting to protect herself against "little pricks".)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Goodfellow
A thoroughly decent chap
# 12121
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
If the statistics are to be believed, 90% of people masturbate regularly.
Who's counting? No-one's ever asked me!
--------------------
Buffer's Yeoman
Posts: 478 | From: The Golden Triangle | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Newman's Own (ay up E). You're right, I do need cheering up! I'm scared to death nearly all the time. But I'm being orthodox, surely? Before the court of heaven, we are all guilty and condemned to death until we appreciate the Judge's self-sacrifice for us. I realise that's a bit PSA Proddy, but I can't not see that. That's the start any way: the realisation of justification. A minimal and sufficient start. The process of sanctification that follows, iterative and cumulative and one step forward and sixteen back as it is, will include the self-justification of all sorts of sin, including the subject ... in-hand. It will include weakness as well as ignorance. Failure. No matter. Acknowledge it and move on in the blood of Christ, under the shadow of the cross. Again. And again. Never give up. Keep taking the failure to the foot of the cross.
I suspect in my tremulous hope, in daring to believe in grace, that even lives that end in failure are redeemable in the resurrection should we still want that.
Where there is darkness there will be light, in our natures, in our beings, I AM with Dame Julian, no matter how hopelessly, terminally tenacious the darkness gets. As long as we don't embrace it and its source.
Martin
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
