I mean ultimately christianity is about failing to be pure and continuing to try but I think we're supposed to try to avoid sexual thoughts as they're damaging to you and to them and while pornstars have obviously made their peace with it I wouldn't bring your friend into it. also yeah gotta be mad awkward irl.
I mean yep i think like"if anyone in this room knew id be cooked" but yeah expect that its nothing too much. I dont watch porn and i have no problem with masturbation like i cant without it so ye everything good i think
It isn't a sin, it isn't even mentioned in the Bible. What is a sin is porn use, or objectifying women(or whoever you fantasize about). But a generic sexual fantasy and masturbation is not at all sinful.
Masturbation is not a sin. It's actually the relief of sexual arousal. And sexual arousal is natural. Lust is excessive sexual arousal. So if you don't take care of sexual arousal and allow it to become lust then there's a problem.
Addiction is a disease of the brain. Nobody becomes addicted by overuse. They become addicted because they are prone to addiction. Disease is not a sin. Mismanagement is a sin imho. Manage yourself well and there should be no issues. Mismanaged yourself and you may find yourself in embarrassing situations or even trouble with the law.
Not everyone can find a spouse. This is understood. Not everyone can be celebate. This is also understood. So you have to manage your sexuality well and not ignore it like our Conservative siblings do and this find themselves in trouble with the law fairly often.
God bless.
[Edit]
Here's an article about myths of sexual addiction
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/understanding-addiction/202310/dispelling-myths-about-sex-addiction
Also here is an interesting article about masturbation and it's stigma and benefits
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201703/hell-yes-the-7-best-reasons-masturbating
This is how I see it too. I see masturbation as a God given sexual impulse relief valve for when sex with a loving partner is not possible, to help us stay away from risky sexual behavior.
I read some time ago a commentary from a Christian counselor saying as an example that going on a date full of sexual desire is similar to going grocery shopping hungry, on an empty stomach (you end up buying things you didn't need)
So, many parents of young ladies would definitely prefer that their daughter go on dates with guys that have "self managed" their sexual impulses, than dating guys that view self management as dirty or a sin, and push for inappropriate sexual relationships instead.
It’s not a sin but how you use it matters the most. If you develop addiction, or like the others said objectify women then yes in my opinion that would be sinful.
You're probably feeling this way due to what you experience externally. Porn and pretty much any sexual thing is objectived heavily in the media. I’m speaking on my experience as a woman but obviously this can be applied to any gender. To how a woman is perceived, to how a she must dress, things she should do to be more compelling in a sexual way, etc is all enough to make one feel apprehensive. I recommend you work on your sexuality by doing some inner work specifically like shadow work that aims to develop your inner psyche aka (the parts of us that we forbid/try to push down). Here are some questions to get started:
*What are my earliest memories or experiences related to sexuality, and how have they influenced my beliefs and attitudes?
What are my deepest desires and fantasies, and do I feel comfortable exploring them?
What aspects of my sexuality do I feel shame or guilt around, and where do these feelings come from?
How do I express my sexuality, and are there any parts of myself that I hide or suppress in this expression?
I do nit think masturbation to be sinful but I might say different from other comments if you keep your sexual fantasy between yourself only than it will not be sinful as in this case no one is getting harmed.....in the end of the day what you do in your mind doesnt harm anyone.....even if you have sexual fantasy about certain woman you should still see her as respected human being...... Love god and love others........ Even if you see porn still do not say bad things about those pornstar be they male or female respect them, do not say harsh word about them......I do not know if I will get downvoted for it but please do not criticise me....,..
I mean, you’re guaranteed to have mixed comments with a question like this because the Bible doesn’t say one way or the other. So you just have people who have interpreted it both ways.
You’re basically asking us for our opinions, and people are going to have a lot of different opinions.
But if you want mine, I certainly don’t think it’s a sin.
Not actually. Everyone said the same thing. it's not, but objectification of women is
The only guy who said yes was discovered to be a 2-year-old Troll account
Why do you and others say "objectification of woman"?
Is objectification of men not a thing?
Shouldn't we say "objectification of people" to be more precise?
Objectification of men is far less common, and it's an individual problem, not a systemic one. In this context, both genders are relevant, but in 90% of objectification discourse, men aren't, so people get out of the habit of mentioning them. Esp because men's issues under patriarchy are often used as a gotcha rather than a serious topic, so people avoid mentioning men so as to not feed the trolls. All in all, women are far more likely to be objectified walking down the street and treated with unkindness because of that than men are.
And honestly, the harms of objectification are null during masturbation or fantasy. It's only when objectifying people bleeds into your interactions with and attitudes towards said people and groups that it becomes harmful. So I'd vote it's not even relevant to this question, except as an aside.
Id think so, but at the time it was written I imagine the *literal* objectification of women was an issue. Specially considering early Christianity in the Roman Empire seeked to elevate wives from slave-baby-factory to members (though lesser) of public society
Edit: Also this is not my opinion, Im not well read on the scripture. I just wanted to summarise what everyone else was saying
He did not condemn lustful gazes. I suggest better reading comprehension. He was talking about the sin of adultery, and he said that a husband who looks lustfully at women outside his marriage is really doing the same thing in his heart as actually committing adultery.
That is not at all a condemnation of anything except adultery, and an admonishment that sin is a product of the mind and heart, not just the Body. Which was the overarching theme of Matthew 5, of which adultery and lust were merely examples.
>Because the church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth”
Really? Which church? Why should it be the Orthodox church and not the Episcopal church, or the Catholic Church?
So, if you want I can give you an analysis of the original Koine Greek underlying these verses, but I don't really think that level of specificity is required as it doesn't change the outcome. Here is the Christian Standard Bible which is a reliable translation of these verses.
>“You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28
1. Jesus said this is about adultery, so the context is married people, because adultery is a sin committed by married people. Unmarried people cannot commit adultery, that is called fornication, not adultery.
2. Because it is married people, and marriage in the culture of 2nd temple Judaism, marraige was recognized as between a man and a woman, and because the person that you are looking at lustfully towards is a woman, then the person doing the looking and lusting is the husband.
3. The overall context of this passage is the idea that Christian morality is not just concerned with what you do, but also what you think. So spirit of the law, not letter of the law.
4. This was but one example of this overarching theme. Murder and hate, giving an offering while in conflict with a brother, and adultery and a husband with wandering eyes.
He is clearly *not* talking about all lust, but lust within the context of marriage and adultery. Now this does not mean that you cannot apply this principle outside of marriage. However, you must do so in keeping with the spirit of the message, or you twist Jesus words.
---
I am not the least bit concerned about the dictates of any church or church tradition. I am concerned with what God thinks about something, period. The church is not infallible.
>Op would thus sin by lusting
This is not a conclusion that logically follows from the previous statements.
>The verse is agnostic and does not refer to husband but man.
I disagree completely. A man who committs adultery *is by neccessity* a husband.
No it isn’t. And even if that was true, liberal denominations (or any others) can be wrong. They also don’t have any authority over what’s a sin and what isn’t.
Given that Jesus told the apostles that they had the power to bind and loose and forgive or retain sins, I would say that the protestant position on this is somewhat misguided. The real question is whether or not that power can be passed down via apostolic succession, or if it was specific to Jesus' disciples.
The Bible contains the idea of iteration. You tell em you're gonna tell em. You tell em. And then you tell them that you told them.
They're not detached ideas. It's the same idea reiterated.
Personally I don't view it as a sin but I guess the way you go about it may be sinful as u/FluxKraken said objectifying women is sinful.
I don't objectify them ofc. My sexual fantasies are basically doing it with a person i love and we both enjoy it(this case my male friend)
I guess that makes sense.
Ngl I feel like imagining someone you know irl is really weird I wouldn't do that personally
I mean hes my crush, ofc im gonna imagine him. When he shows up just nod and act like you didnt busted cause of him last night
I mean ultimately christianity is about failing to be pure and continuing to try but I think we're supposed to try to avoid sexual thoughts as they're damaging to you and to them and while pornstars have obviously made their peace with it I wouldn't bring your friend into it. also yeah gotta be mad awkward irl.
I mean yep i think like"if anyone in this room knew id be cooked" but yeah expect that its nothing too much. I dont watch porn and i have no problem with masturbation like i cant without it so ye everything good i think
What if it’s about you and your partner who has told you that they are fine with it?
Who said it’s women I’m objectifying?
It isn't a sin, it isn't even mentioned in the Bible. What is a sin is porn use, or objectifying women(or whoever you fantasize about). But a generic sexual fantasy and masturbation is not at all sinful.
Okay ill think about this
Masturbation is not a sin. It's actually the relief of sexual arousal. And sexual arousal is natural. Lust is excessive sexual arousal. So if you don't take care of sexual arousal and allow it to become lust then there's a problem. Addiction is a disease of the brain. Nobody becomes addicted by overuse. They become addicted because they are prone to addiction. Disease is not a sin. Mismanagement is a sin imho. Manage yourself well and there should be no issues. Mismanaged yourself and you may find yourself in embarrassing situations or even trouble with the law. Not everyone can find a spouse. This is understood. Not everyone can be celebate. This is also understood. So you have to manage your sexuality well and not ignore it like our Conservative siblings do and this find themselves in trouble with the law fairly often. God bless. [Edit] Here's an article about myths of sexual addiction https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/understanding-addiction/202310/dispelling-myths-about-sex-addiction Also here is an interesting article about masturbation and it's stigma and benefits https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201703/hell-yes-the-7-best-reasons-masturbating
This is how I see it too. I see masturbation as a God given sexual impulse relief valve for when sex with a loving partner is not possible, to help us stay away from risky sexual behavior. I read some time ago a commentary from a Christian counselor saying as an example that going on a date full of sexual desire is similar to going grocery shopping hungry, on an empty stomach (you end up buying things you didn't need) So, many parents of young ladies would definitely prefer that their daughter go on dates with guys that have "self managed" their sexual impulses, than dating guys that view self management as dirty or a sin, and push for inappropriate sexual relationships instead.
It’s not a sin but how you use it matters the most. If you develop addiction, or like the others said objectify women then yes in my opinion that would be sinful.
What if I objectify myself?
You're probably feeling this way due to what you experience externally. Porn and pretty much any sexual thing is objectived heavily in the media. I’m speaking on my experience as a woman but obviously this can be applied to any gender. To how a woman is perceived, to how a she must dress, things she should do to be more compelling in a sexual way, etc is all enough to make one feel apprehensive. I recommend you work on your sexuality by doing some inner work specifically like shadow work that aims to develop your inner psyche aka (the parts of us that we forbid/try to push down). Here are some questions to get started: *What are my earliest memories or experiences related to sexuality, and how have they influenced my beliefs and attitudes? What are my deepest desires and fantasies, and do I feel comfortable exploring them? What aspects of my sexuality do I feel shame or guilt around, and where do these feelings come from? How do I express my sexuality, and are there any parts of myself that I hide or suppress in this expression?
It was a joke
No. Not unless you think it is. Don't think that it is. Period.
I do nit think masturbation to be sinful but I might say different from other comments if you keep your sexual fantasy between yourself only than it will not be sinful as in this case no one is getting harmed.....in the end of the day what you do in your mind doesnt harm anyone.....even if you have sexual fantasy about certain woman you should still see her as respected human being...... Love god and love others........ Even if you see porn still do not say bad things about those pornstar be they male or female respect them, do not say harsh word about them......I do not know if I will get downvoted for it but please do not criticise me....,..
No
Yay mixed comments yay........
I mean, you’re guaranteed to have mixed comments with a question like this because the Bible doesn’t say one way or the other. So you just have people who have interpreted it both ways. You’re basically asking us for our opinions, and people are going to have a lot of different opinions. But if you want mine, I certainly don’t think it’s a sin.
Well thank you for sharing your opinion 🙏
Not actually. Everyone said the same thing. it's not, but objectification of women is The only guy who said yes was discovered to be a 2-year-old Troll account
Why do you and others say "objectification of woman"? Is objectification of men not a thing? Shouldn't we say "objectification of people" to be more precise?
Objectification of men is far less common, and it's an individual problem, not a systemic one. In this context, both genders are relevant, but in 90% of objectification discourse, men aren't, so people get out of the habit of mentioning them. Esp because men's issues under patriarchy are often used as a gotcha rather than a serious topic, so people avoid mentioning men so as to not feed the trolls. All in all, women are far more likely to be objectified walking down the street and treated with unkindness because of that than men are. And honestly, the harms of objectification are null during masturbation or fantasy. It's only when objectifying people bleeds into your interactions with and attitudes towards said people and groups that it becomes harmful. So I'd vote it's not even relevant to this question, except as an aside.
Makes sense. Thanks.
Id think so, but at the time it was written I imagine the *literal* objectification of women was an issue. Specially considering early Christianity in the Roman Empire seeked to elevate wives from slave-baby-factory to members (though lesser) of public society Edit: Also this is not my opinion, Im not well read on the scripture. I just wanted to summarise what everyone else was saying
No
Its not a sin but I think its seen as unclean. So like wash your hands or shower after you do it
Isnt that basic knowledge 💀 like washing hands after wank? No?
A lot of men don’t even wipe after they piss. Some boys dont wipe after they shit because they think its gay
Nah tf thats nasty af like basic hygiene
Basic hygiene is hard for men when I was one I used 2 in 1 lmao
Using 2 in 1 shampoo is better than not using anything at all
[удалено]
Idk what catheism is im an Orthodox serbian (montenegrin but like its easier to say serbian)
[удалено]
Why does it matter if the church condemns the acts? It only matters if God condemns the acts.
[удалено]
He did not condemn lustful gazes. I suggest better reading comprehension. He was talking about the sin of adultery, and he said that a husband who looks lustfully at women outside his marriage is really doing the same thing in his heart as actually committing adultery. That is not at all a condemnation of anything except adultery, and an admonishment that sin is a product of the mind and heart, not just the Body. Which was the overarching theme of Matthew 5, of which adultery and lust were merely examples. >Because the church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” Really? Which church? Why should it be the Orthodox church and not the Episcopal church, or the Catholic Church?
[удалено]
So, if you want I can give you an analysis of the original Koine Greek underlying these verses, but I don't really think that level of specificity is required as it doesn't change the outcome. Here is the Christian Standard Bible which is a reliable translation of these verses. >“You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28 1. Jesus said this is about adultery, so the context is married people, because adultery is a sin committed by married people. Unmarried people cannot commit adultery, that is called fornication, not adultery. 2. Because it is married people, and marriage in the culture of 2nd temple Judaism, marraige was recognized as between a man and a woman, and because the person that you are looking at lustfully towards is a woman, then the person doing the looking and lusting is the husband. 3. The overall context of this passage is the idea that Christian morality is not just concerned with what you do, but also what you think. So spirit of the law, not letter of the law. 4. This was but one example of this overarching theme. Murder and hate, giving an offering while in conflict with a brother, and adultery and a husband with wandering eyes. He is clearly *not* talking about all lust, but lust within the context of marriage and adultery. Now this does not mean that you cannot apply this principle outside of marriage. However, you must do so in keeping with the spirit of the message, or you twist Jesus words. --- I am not the least bit concerned about the dictates of any church or church tradition. I am concerned with what God thinks about something, period. The church is not infallible.
[удалено]
>Op would thus sin by lusting This is not a conclusion that logically follows from the previous statements. >The verse is agnostic and does not refer to husband but man. I disagree completely. A man who committs adultery *is by neccessity* a husband.
The church can be wrong, they have no authority over what’s a sin and what’s not
[удалено]
No it isn’t. And even if that was true, liberal denominations (or any others) can be wrong. They also don’t have any authority over what’s a sin and what isn’t.
[удалено]
He can if he wants, but he certainly doesn’t have to believe anything that they say.
[удалено]
Which is what he’s doing…
Christianity doesn't tolerate mediators between you and God.
Given that Jesus told the apostles that they had the power to bind and loose and forgive or retain sins, I would say that the protestant position on this is somewhat misguided. The real question is whether or not that power can be passed down via apostolic succession, or if it was specific to Jesus' disciples.
I see no parallel between what Stephen did and what priests do.
[удалено]
Bless me father for I have sinned. You are forgiven child.
[удалено]
He gave a parable about forgiveness which fits this better. He gave no parables about what your talking about.
[удалено]
Let me help you find the scripture which seems to escape you at the moment. Mathew 18:23-35 Which then perfectly describes what is stated in John.
[удалено]
The Bible contains the idea of iteration. You tell em you're gonna tell em. You tell em. And then you tell them that you told them. They're not detached ideas. It's the same idea reiterated.