Is masturbation a sin?
- Thread starter LW97
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Whatever you do in your heart and mind (spiritually) it is the same as if you do that physically. Jesus said if you hate your brother you already guilty of murder (spiritually). Jesus said if you look at someone to lust after them you are already guilty of adultery- that would include in person, on a tv or computer screen, or even in your imagination.
However, if for example a husband was away from his wife, and thought of his wife, i do not think it is a sin in that case because it is not a sin to physically have relations with his wife. But your thoughts and intentions are not the only thing to consider if a sin is being committed- cleanliness, visual and audio privacy, germs, etc can also be areas of sin other than possible perversion.
However, if for example a husband was away from his wife, and thought of his wife, i do not think it is a sin in that case because it is not a sin to physically have relations with his wife. But your thoughts and intentions are not the only thing to consider if a sin is being committed- cleanliness, visual and audio privacy, germs, etc can also be areas of sin other than possible perversion.
.
Back in the decade of the 1970s-- before personal computing and the
internet --I used to stop in at a 7-11 convenience store every morning on
my way to work. Back then, naughty magazines were right out in front of
the counter before it became illegal to display them like that.
I remarked to the clerk that I was puzzled why men didn't get married
instead of resorting to naughty magazines to satisfy their longings. He
answered: Some men are buying the magazines because they're married.
I hadn't thought of that angle, but I'm pretty sure the clerk was right
because internet porn is very popular with married men; even Christian
married men. In point of fact; internet porn has become so prevalent that
some churches are offering counseling for Christian men that they say
are "addicted" to porn.
Personally, I rather suspect that internet porn is keeping quite a few men
home at night instead of out cruising bars for chicks. In point of fact, I'd even
go so far as to suggest that there are a number of marriages that internet porn
is helping to save rather than wreck. So let's not be too quick to condemn
men into porn who are stuck with wives that leave them frustrated, desperate,
and unfulfilled.
_
Back in the decade of the 1970s-- before personal computing and the
internet --I used to stop in at a 7-11 convenience store every morning on
my way to work. Back then, naughty magazines were right out in front of
the counter before it became illegal to display them like that.
I remarked to the clerk that I was puzzled why men didn't get married
instead of resorting to naughty magazines to satisfy their longings. He
answered: Some men are buying the magazines because they're married.
I hadn't thought of that angle, but I'm pretty sure the clerk was right
because internet porn is very popular with married men; even Christian
married men. In point of fact; internet porn has become so prevalent that
some churches are offering counseling for Christian men that they say
are "addicted" to porn.
Personally, I rather suspect that internet porn is keeping quite a few men
home at night instead of out cruising bars for chicks. In point of fact, I'd even
go so far as to suggest that there are a number of marriages that internet porn
is helping to save rather than wreck. So let's not be too quick to condemn
men into porn who are stuck with wives that leave them frustrated, desperate,
and unfulfilled.
_
-
1
- Show all
.
● 1John 3:15 . . Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer
That isn't saying hatred for one's brother is an act of murder. It's saying
that one's hatred for a brother reveals that one has a murderer's heart.
For example: lions and tigers are carnivores. Even if they should never eat
meat, they would still be carnivores because it isn't the animals' diet that
makes them carnivores; they're carnivores because they have the nature
of a carnivore.
● Matt 5:27-28 . .You have heard that it was said you shall not commit
adultery; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for
her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first
have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously
somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary carnal activity
between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a
married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in
order for an incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the participants
has to be married.
The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which
means: to set the heart upon.
Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely
liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something
is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the
ruling of covetousness; which reads:
● Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to
"covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy
(1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the
full intention of possessing it.
Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it
condemns scheming to take away something of your neighbor's instead of
getting your own. (cf. 1Kgs 21:1-20)
So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that a man can't look across
the street at his neighbor's Harley and drool over it, turning green with
envy? Or that a man can't gape at his neighbor's buxom wife, undressing
her with his eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust
we're talking about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies a man scheming
to obtain the neighbor's Harley, and his buxom wife, instead of getting your
own.
As an illustration: in the movie The Bridges Of Madison County, there's a
precise moment when a married Francesca Johnson makes a definite
decision to initiate an affair with free-lance photographer Robert Kincaid.
Francesca was okay with Robert up till the moment of her decision; but from
that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an adulteress before she and Robert
even slept together because it was in her heart to make it happen.
Supposing a religious man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to
entertain thoughts about women-- any woman, whether somebody's wife or
single? Well; too bad because if that's the way he feels, then whenever he
entertains those thoughts, he's an adulterer.
● Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean.
● Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
That is indeed tragic because there are perfectly normal men out and about
stacking up piles of unnecessary sins against themselves due to their religion
instilling within them a guilt complex related to their God-given attraction to
women.
_
● 1John 3:15 . . Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer
That isn't saying hatred for one's brother is an act of murder. It's saying
that one's hatred for a brother reveals that one has a murderer's heart.
For example: lions and tigers are carnivores. Even if they should never eat
meat, they would still be carnivores because it isn't the animals' diet that
makes them carnivores; they're carnivores because they have the nature
of a carnivore.
● Matt 5:27-28 . .You have heard that it was said you shall not commit
adultery; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for
her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first
have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously
somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary carnal activity
between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a
married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in
order for an incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the participants
has to be married.
The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which
means: to set the heart upon.
Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely
liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something
is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the
ruling of covetousness; which reads:
● Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to
"covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy
(1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the
full intention of possessing it.
Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it
condemns scheming to take away something of your neighbor's instead of
getting your own. (cf. 1Kgs 21:1-20)
So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that a man can't look across
the street at his neighbor's Harley and drool over it, turning green with
envy? Or that a man can't gape at his neighbor's buxom wife, undressing
her with his eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust
we're talking about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies a man scheming
to obtain the neighbor's Harley, and his buxom wife, instead of getting your
own.
As an illustration: in the movie The Bridges Of Madison County, there's a
precise moment when a married Francesca Johnson makes a definite
decision to initiate an affair with free-lance photographer Robert Kincaid.
Francesca was okay with Robert up till the moment of her decision; but from
that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an adulteress before she and Robert
even slept together because it was in her heart to make it happen.
Supposing a religious man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to
entertain thoughts about women-- any woman, whether somebody's wife or
single? Well; too bad because if that's the way he feels, then whenever he
entertains those thoughts, he's an adulterer.
● Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean.
● Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
That is indeed tragic because there are perfectly normal men out and about
stacking up piles of unnecessary sins against themselves due to their religion
instilling within them a guilt complex related to their God-given attraction to
women.
_
No, what Jesus is saying is that if you hate your brother you are already guilty of murder- whether you carry it out physically or not. On judgement day, if you hated your brother, your verdict will be murderer. On judgement day, if you lusted after someone you are not married to, the verdict will be adulterer. If you break God's law spiritually, it will be the same as if you broke His law physically. The punishment will be the same. (Either Christ's blood will cover it, or you will go to hell. But also the person who uses Christ's sacrifice as a license to sin will also go to hell).
-
2
- Show all
.
It's all in your mind and in the way you yourself personally interpret the
Bible. If you think it's a sin to watch porn, then for you it is definitely sin.
● Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean.
● Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
NOTE: Beware judging others according to your own personal values
because that would be usurping Christ's sovereign right to make the rules.
_
It's all in your mind and in the way you yourself personally interpret the
Bible. If you think it's a sin to watch porn, then for you it is definitely sin.
● Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean.
● Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
NOTE: Beware judging others according to your own personal values
because that would be usurping Christ's sovereign right to make the rules.
_
-
3
-
1
- Show all
Its interesting that they are referred to as adulterers, which means He was speaking to married individuals. So if a single person lusts, presumably it is fornication, then. Well, at least, in the heart. I've heard it said that lust isn't just a simple appreciation of what you see, but if no one else was around you'd partake in the act with them (as if you could get away with it, no repercussions).
Why not save your marriage by throwing it to your wife, instead of wanking to porn?
Maybe they are frustrated, desperate, and unfulfilled, because they are looking at images of people that are exploited because their dad wasn't around.
Oh yeah, wanna be around for kids? Stick around with their mother. porn doesn't help with this.
Maybe they are frustrated, desperate, and unfulfilled, because they are looking at images of people that are exploited because their dad wasn't around.
Oh yeah, wanna be around for kids? Stick around with their mother. porn doesn't help with this.
.
● Gen 2:25 . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, yet they
felt no shame.
Webster's defines shame as: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a feeling of inferiority
or inadequacy, and 3) inhibition.
In other words, there was absolutely nothing in the early human psyche
restraining people from parading around in full frontal exposure; and
actually, neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. Adam
was a product of nature; hence he was comfortable au naturel. They weren't
exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their innocence,
Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated by, their
appearance totally in the buff.
Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure at
first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest respect because as yet
they knew no cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt
complex about sex and the human body; and concepts like dirty thoughts,
vanity, and narcissism had no point of reference in their thinking
whatsoever. They had absolutely no natural sense of propriety, nor were
they even aware of any because their creator hadn't taught them any
proprieties yet at this point.
That was an interesting time in early human development. They had neither
intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code. Had somebody
criticized the first couple's appearance, they would no doubt have stared at
their critic like a man taken leave of his senses.
Well; that all changed thanks to the forbidden fruit.
● Gen 3:7c . . and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves
loincloths.
Interesting that they made loincloths, but not derriere cloths nor bosom
cloths. Why so? Because they suddenly felt very different about their
genitalia, and no doubt were overwhelmed with a disgrace associated with
them that persists to this very day.
● Gen 3:11 . .Then He asked: Who told you that you were naked?
In other words: Who told you that full exposure is indecent?
Nobody told them full exposure is indecent. It was their newly acquired
humanistic feelings about sex and the human body.
I'm not recommending that we all go back to full exposure; all I'm saying is
that our post-fruit sense of propriety is a maladjusted sense which, I've no
doubt, strongly influences people's feelings about watching porn. In other
words: if not for our post-fruit guilt feelings about sex and the human body,
watching porn would be no more sinful in our thinking than watching dogs,
cats, horses, cows, and pigs breeding.
_
● Gen 2:25 . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, yet they
felt no shame.
Webster's defines shame as: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a feeling of inferiority
or inadequacy, and 3) inhibition.
In other words, there was absolutely nothing in the early human psyche
restraining people from parading around in full frontal exposure; and
actually, neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. Adam
was a product of nature; hence he was comfortable au naturel. They weren't
exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their innocence,
Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated by, their
appearance totally in the buff.
Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure at
first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest respect because as yet
they knew no cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt
complex about sex and the human body; and concepts like dirty thoughts,
vanity, and narcissism had no point of reference in their thinking
whatsoever. They had absolutely no natural sense of propriety, nor were
they even aware of any because their creator hadn't taught them any
proprieties yet at this point.
That was an interesting time in early human development. They had neither
intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code. Had somebody
criticized the first couple's appearance, they would no doubt have stared at
their critic like a man taken leave of his senses.
Well; that all changed thanks to the forbidden fruit.
● Gen 3:7c . . and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves
loincloths.
Interesting that they made loincloths, but not derriere cloths nor bosom
cloths. Why so? Because they suddenly felt very different about their
genitalia, and no doubt were overwhelmed with a disgrace associated with
them that persists to this very day.
● Gen 3:11 . .Then He asked: Who told you that you were naked?
In other words: Who told you that full exposure is indecent?
Nobody told them full exposure is indecent. It was their newly acquired
humanistic feelings about sex and the human body.
I'm not recommending that we all go back to full exposure; all I'm saying is
that our post-fruit sense of propriety is a maladjusted sense which, I've no
doubt, strongly influences people's feelings about watching porn. In other
words: if not for our post-fruit guilt feelings about sex and the human body,
watching porn would be no more sinful in our thinking than watching dogs,
cats, horses, cows, and pigs breeding.
_
masturbation is the reaction to what has caused this to be done. porn is the number one cause . in addition it too is habit forming. I am counseling a married man who is addicted to this very thing. porn is the cause. he is a Christian and he is seeking help. if it was so harmless why has it caused so much pain. masturbation is the end result to a larger issue.
-
2
-
1
- Show all