Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

Post by _JAK »

harmony wrote:
JAK wrote:
Religious doctrine/dogma is not recognized for being rational.

JAK


Catholics have been wrong too, JAK. So? That doesn't mean the LDS church has to follow in their footsteps.


Hey harmony,

Please understand, as I stated, I’m not defending any religious dogma.

Since you phrase your comment as you do, I would remind you that according to Pope Benedict XVI, there is only one path to eternal life and that is the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines.

Again, I’m not defending that. It’s the position of the Roman Catholic Church and the present Pope (along with all the preceding popes dating back to St. Peter according to the RCC).

Newcomers on the block, including all that followed in the wake of the Protestant Reformation (1517), are false. That’s unwavering Roman Catholic Doctrine from the Vatican.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

Post by _JAK »

Paul Osborne wrote:
Hmm. So if a faithful LDS has a child who spills his seed instead of impregnating his sister-in-law, should his parents follow the example of yahweh?


We have no idea how Onan died. The story doesn't tell us that. Maybe he died of cancer later on. Maybe he had a heart attack. Who know? Who cares?

Paul O


Of course we have no idea. Just make up some religious dogma, declare it truth, and it is truth.

Genesis 38:8-10 (King James Version)
8And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. (emphasis mine)

The script says “the thing which he did displeased the LORD; wherefore he slew him also.

It’s religious dogma and doctrine. Evidence for “LORD” is nonexistent.

But, according to this script “the LORD” “slew him…” Hence, the script makes it sound serious and that those reading the script should be very afraid.

Believers in some dogma or another (along with their hierarchy which dictates the dogma) may “care” or not. Maybe, maybe, maybe is correct. It’s all speculation including the God inventions of the hundreds of religious groups which declare that their dogma is the true dogma.

Again, Paul, I defend none of it.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

Post by _JAK »

Paul Osborne wrote:
EAllusion wrote:Onan's "sin" was disobeying God in failing to procreate with his brother's wife, not masturbation.


Agreed. The whole point of the story is to show that disobeying the law displeases God.

What if Onan had actually given his seed like a faithful brother should and then dicided to go for another round but spill the second on the ground? Where is the sin, then? Would God have slain Onan after doing that?

Paul O


Hey Paul,

The above is your interpretation. Someone else, some other doctrine maker sees “the whole point of the story” with a different interpretation. As for “Would God have slain…” appears to assume that God slays people. The Bible certainly gives ample examples of God killing people, individuals as well as genocide of entire civilizations.

The argument over which interpretation is the correct interpretation is a pointless one.

For purposes in this thread, sex is sex regardless of how it’s done or with whom it’s done. That is, if sexual stimulation ends in an orgasm, it makes little difference what the techniques were. Emotional/psychological factors have to do with one’s perceptions, beliefs, guilt-trips, etc., not with a sexual response.

That should generate some controversy.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

Post by _JAK »

marg wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:


The Church has no specific guidance on what to say or not say regarding masturbation for boys or girls. However, both will hear along the way the self abuse is wrong and sinful and that they should not do it. So when they do they my think they need to confess it to their bishops. And it does not matter if you can picture a young girl bringing it up to their bishop as a problem to discuss. They do and have.


And I would hope all Bishops would tell them there is nothing to feel guilty about and nothing with regards to masturbation which should be reported to any Bishop. As others have noted by the way, calling it " self abuse" is wrong.


Exactly, marg.

However, there is clearly (in law) what is understood and defined as sexual abuse. “Masturbation” is not illegal. That various religious groups regard it as “immoral” is just a particular take on morality. Religious dogma on “masturbation” varies in relative significance from of no importance to eternal damnation … unless one confesses one’s sin according to some religious dogma or another.

However, one cannot rely on “bishops” who have a particular religious dogma to defend in a particular religious order. Bishops are obligated to defend a given religious doctrine. So, I would be skeptical that the bishops in any religious order would take your advice – good as it is.

JAK
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

Post by _harmony »

JAK wrote:That is, if sexual stimulation ends in an orgasm, it makes little difference what the techniques were. Emotional/psychological factors have to do with one’s perceptions, beliefs, guilt-trips, etc., not with a sexual response.


Wow. You shoulda been an LDS man. You'd fit right in.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

Post by _JAK »

Jersey Girl wrote:Here you go, Paul. The message is really one of judging disobedience. But there it is.

Genesis 38

38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.


Well, Jersey Girl, that’s an interpretation.

Supposing that you are correct, it’s no picture of a loving, forgiving God that’s painted here. It’s an emotional, reactive, irrational God killing individuals whom this God for any reason, whatever reason does not like. Blind obedience is required. This is quite contradictory to what many today view (believe in) as a God that requires us humans to be loving and forgiving regardless of the injustice we perceive has been done to us. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is not demonstrated in the above God invention.

Of course, nothing about religiosity places any requirement on God inventions to be consistent or rational. A single offense get’s one “slain.”

JAK
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

Post by _harmony »

JAK wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Here you go, Paul. The message is really one of judging disobedience. But there it is.

Genesis 38

38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.


Well, Jersey Girl, that’s an interpretation.

Supposing that you are correct, it’s no picture of a loving, forgiving God that’s painted here. It’s an emotional, reactive, irrational God killing individuals whom this God for any reason, whatever reason does not like. Blind obedience is required. This is quite contradictory to what many today view (believe in) as a God that requires us humans to be loving and forgiving regardless of the injustice we perceive has been done to us. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is not demonstrated in the above God invention.

Of course, nothing about religiosity places any requirement on God inventions to be consistent or rational. A single offense get’s one “slain.”

JAK


You've forgotten who wrote the scriptures, JAK.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

Post by _JAK »

harmony wrote:
You've forgotten who wrote the scriptures, JAK.


Not in the slightest. Just contemplate what a different configuration of religious myths had ALL been written by women.

Goddesses might have been more loving, more kind, and more humane.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

Post by _JAK »

harmony wrote:
JAK wrote:That is, if sexual stimulation ends in an orgasm, it makes little difference what the techniques were. Emotional/psychological factors have to do with one’s perceptions, beliefs, guilt-trips, etc., not with a sexual response.


Wow. You shoulda been an LDS man. You'd fit right in.


Not at all

JAK
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

Post by _Brackite »

Gazelam wrote: Jak,

Thank you for that.

I believe that Paul and Brack already know that they are in the wrong. For some reason they want to justify this behavior, and I will not speculate as to why. It is clearly viewed as wrong and a part of the law of chastity by every religious teacher I have ever heard, from any christian faith.

There is also this scripture that can be applied to the subject:
In Matthew 5:27-28, Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) is reported as saying: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Lust is without question tied to masturbation, and the scripture is easily reversed to include the woman.




Gaz,

Jak does not believe that the Bible is divine.

Anyway, Here is some information about the Scriptural Passage of Matthew Chapter Five, Verses 27 through 28, From one of the Web Site Pages, From Religious Tolerance:


Did Jesus forbid masturbation?


...


Feeling lust is equivalent to adultery:

In Matthew 5:27-28, Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) is reported as saying: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (King James Version).

In the past, many Christian theologians extended this teaching to even include husbands who had feelings of sexual lust towards their wives. They regarded all sexual intercourse as sinful to some degree. It was regarded as a necessary evil to prevent the human race from dying out. Spouses were expected to try to suppress sexual feelings and thoughts as they had sex. This belief is a minority position today.

Beliefs about sexual lust differ among Christians:

Most conservative Christians believe that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God to produce writing that was free of errors when interpreted as the author intended. They generally accept the literal meaning of this saying: that a man having feelings of lust towards a woman has already committed adultery. Most extend it to also include persons of all sexes (male, female and intersexual) who have even brief feelings of lust for another person.

Many liberal Christians reject this belief.
Some reason that lust is an emotion that comes from a more primitive part of the brain that is not under a person's conscious control. The triggering of feelings in general are beyond a person's influence. A person's hormones naturally causes them to have feelings of sexual attraction to persons of the opposite sex (if they have a heterosexual orientation) or to the same sex (if they have a homosexual orientation) or to both men and women (if they are bisexual). These feelings only become a sin if they result in inappropriate action, such as sexual behavior that is coercive, manipulative, not consensual, or unsafe. Most probably also include as a sin sexual activity which is outside of a committed relationship.
Some regard many of the sayings attributed to the words of Yeshua as actually having been created by the authors of the Gospels. They reflect the teachings of the early Christian movement more than the beliefs or statements of Yeshua. The Jesus Seminar, for example, rejects Matthew 5:27-28 as not reflecting Jesus original words or beliefs. They commented: "On lust: The injunction against lust occurs commonly in Israelite tradition. ('You must not covert your neighbor's wife' appears as one of the Ten Commandments) and so this admonition did not originate with Jesus."
Some have noted that the original Greek implies not simple lust, but overwhelming feelings of lust extending over a significant interval of time. Thus, they believe that a passing feeling of lust would not be equivalent to adultery.


...


Does masturbation necessarily involve feelings of lust?

A person who is masturbating frequently fantasizes about a person of the appropriate sex. However, they can often find an alternative focus. For example, they could concentrate on their body's physiological responses, on an impending orgasm, or on some other thought not involving a human sexual object.

So, masturbation does not necessarily include lustful thoughts, and thus cannot always be interpreted as adultery, even by the most conservative Christians.





(Religious Tolerance:)




Now, Here is Part of a Bible Commentary on the Scriptural Passage of Matthew Chapter Five, Verses 27 through 28:



i. With the words, “whoever looks at woman,” Jesus located the origin of lust back to the eyes. This is true according to Biblical statement (such as Job 31:1) and life-experience. “When one seemed to pity a one-eyed man, he told him he had lost one of his enemies, a very thief, that would have stolen away his heart.” (Trapp)



ii. However, it is important to understand that Jesus is not saying that the act of adultery and adultery in the heart are the same thing. More than a few people have been deceived on this point, and say “I’ve already committed adultery in my heart, so I may as well do it in practice.” The act of adultery is far worse than adultery in the heart. Jesus’ point is not to say they are the same things, but to say they are both sin, and both prohibited by the command against adultery.



iii. Some people only keep from adultery because they are afraid to get caught, and in their heart they commit adultery every day. It is good that they keep from the act of adultery, but it is bad that their heart is filled with adultery.



iv. This principle applies to much more than men looking at women. It applies to just about anything we can covet with the eye or mind. “These are the most searching words concerning impurity that ever were uttered.” (Morgan)





(Enduringword.)


<>
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Post Reply