The plague of porn

[Josh]

Andy Whitman-- music writer extraordinaire-- is talkin' 'bout porn!

[plumb_fan]

It reminds me of a comment made by my former youth pastor: "there are two types of guys, the ones who masturbate and liars."

[BennieM]

It reminds me of a comment made by my former youth pastor: "there are two types of guys, the ones who masturbate and liars."

It's good to know he or she thinks everyone is depraved in the same ways.  

But the blog was interesting, thank you, Josh.

[bloop]

Well, the quote isn't quite true, but the statistics seem to say it's rather close.

[plumb_fan]

I never said I believed it was true, only that the article (specifically the part about every man struggling with porn at some point) reminded me of what he said.

[AldaForPresident]

According to Kinsey, that statement IS true.

And here I thought I had blocked the vast majority of that movie out mentally.

[bethany]

Thanks for the link, Josh. That's a great post, and the dicussion in the comments is good, too.  

[Guest]

What a great post and discussion. Thanks, Josh.  

[murlough23]

It's good to know he or she thinks everyone is depraved in the same ways.  

Eh, I'm not so convinced that masturbation is a sign of depravity, in and of itself. Unless there's something in the Bible that specifically mentions it, other than the Onan story, which is a gross misinterpretation if you want to make it about masturbation, then we'd best not throw it around as this terrible, horrible thing that everyone does.

But we're talkin' about porn here, and you could be masturbating to porn or conjuring up mental porn while doing it, and that's pretty bad, but I think the problem is what's going on in your mind. Physiologically, when a guy has a sexual response to things he's seeing, hearing, smelling, whatever (the seeing part is the most notable by far, of course), those things tend to burn onto his brain. I can't say whether it works the same for women in terms of that attachment getting formed. But (excuse me while I'm really blunt for a minute) being horny tends to feel pretty good, and having an orgasm feels way better than that, and I think these things were designed that way for a reason - they help to form an attachment to our mates. Problem? When that response gets attached to someone/something that is not our mate. Really tough to overcome a craving for something once that something is associated with such intensely good feelings.

And maybe you could apply that to the masturbation discussion above, since obviously the mate is not the one causing the sexual pleasure. But I see masturbation as more of a mind control thing, and if done in moderation and with one's thoughts focused on an experience being looked forward to in its proper context (i.e. not looking at or thinking of someone who is not your wife or doesn't stand a highly reasonable chance of becoming your wife), I'm not convinced that it's so bad.

I mean, hey. Some nights I'm raring to go and she's totally tuckered out. Better to not harass her if she offers a rain check. Of course, if left alone long enough, the male reproductive system will take care of its own needs, which may or may not be accompanied by a pretty good (and potentially pornographic?) dream... I don't think women have that equivalent, so I'm not quite sure what the hell they're supposed to do about it if masturbation is totally 100% bad.

Sorry if my explanation of my viewpoint shocks or offends people... but it's what I know to be true.

Anyway, porn bad, OK, we're all on the same page there. So what do we do about the fact that way more of the Church than we want to admit is dealing with it?

[Josh]

And maybe you could apply that to the masturbation discussion above, since obviously the mate is not the one causing the sexual pleasure. But I see masturbation as more of a mind control thing, and if done in moderation and with one's thoughts focused on an experience being looked forward to in its proper context (i.e. not looking at or thinking of someone who is not your wife or doesn't stand a highly reasonable chance of becoming your wife), I'm not convinced that it's so bad.

Theoretically masturbation is completely okay, so long as one does it without lusting. But is that actually possible in a real life scenario? Perhaps I'm just wired differently, but I can't imagine ever doing it without it being accompanied by lustful thoughts-- and that most certainly is sinful. So I guess I agreee with you in theory, but in practice I'm not so sure your views could ever really play out.

[BennieM]

Problem? When that response gets attached to someone/something that is not our mate. Really tough to overcome a craving for something once that something is associated with such intensely good feelings.

As far asI know, the traditional Christian understanding is that there is a problem when that response gets detached from someone/something that is not one's mate. It is not the attachment to something else that is a problem; it's the detachment from or not-attachment to one's wife or husband. Apply that to masturbation as you can. As far as I can tell, that puts it out. I may be wrong.

Theoretically masturbation is completely okay, so long as one does it without lusting.

Just out of curiosity: You do apply the same standard to other forms of sexual pleasure that are not experienced between wife and husband? Lust is the sole issue? Adultery for 'charitable reasons' (say, to give someone an heir), for instance? Or is there really another, tangible reality of marriage that is not confined to what happens in your head? Is there actually a physical no-no as well as a mental one?

[bloop]

Given that one is permitted and expected to desire one's own wife in a sexual way, I can only conclude that it is, in fact, possible in practice.  I'm with murlough on this one.

[BennieM]

Given that one is permitted and expected to desire one's own wife in a sexual way, I can only conclude that it is, in fact, possible in practice.

What is possible in practice? Desiring one's wife, non-lustfully (that is, lovingly)? I doubt anyone would disagree, not just murlough.    

[bloop]

Context, Bennie.  That wasn't the subject of conversation, so there's nothing that I wrote that's difficult to apply to a particular scenario that we're actually talking about.

[Josh]

I'm not really following where the conversation is going. Are we talking about a married man masturbating and/or having strong sexual attraction for his wife? Because that would obviously be a very different matter-- certainly the latter is appropriate, and I'm sure a case could be made for the former. I was talking about masturbating when one is not married, in which case I can't imagine some sort of lust being involved.

[bloop]

My point was precisely that it's not a hard and fast rule that can be universalized.  If there's an exception, and there seems to be here, then the sin is not the act we're talking about.

[murlough23]

My point was precisely that it's not a hard and fast rule that can be universalized.  If there's an exception, and there seems to be here, then the sin is not the act we're talking about.

That was my point. It has to do with the intentions and thoughts more so than the act. I'm not saying that to advocate that we all go out and start masturbating rampantly or anything.

I do think, however, that maybe there can be some allowance for this, even for the unmarried. What exactly that looks like, I'm not sure.

[Josh]

Again, my point is not that masturbation is inherently wrong, but, as murlough points says, I'm not sure how it could ever exist apart from the sinful act of lust. Thus, masturbation may not be a sin, but it's probably fair to assume that it's the sign of other sins within one's life.

[BennieM]

I'm not really following where the conversation is going.

See, I was lost, too... I still don't understand what the unqualified 'it' is in bloop's post. Grammatically it means what I commented on. I've been told it didn't mean what he wrote. There are quite a lot of other 'it's on the thread: masturbation, masturbation of a married man, masturbation of any married person, porn, masturbation to porn, masturbation to no lustful thoughts whatsoever...

Yeah, I'm lost.

Thus, masturbation may not be a sin, but it's probably fair to assume that it's the sign of other sins within one's life.

To be fair, though, sexual sin is not restricted to lust. Adultery is sin, not only because it is lustful (it doesn't need to be), but because it is adulterous. It consists in sex outside of marriage. I don't understand why this dimension, the physical dimension of fornication and adultery, is being completely neglected in favour of exclusive lust/no-lust thinking.

Yes, lust is an important consideration. Jesus said so. But he never said it was the only consideration. He said to lust was to commit adultery. He did not say the converse: that to commit adultery was to lust. Adultery has greater dimension than that. There is a physical side, too.

I really don't get why this dimension has not even been given a reason for being rejected. It's just been ignored. Perhaps there is a reason. No one has given it.  

[murlough23]

Again, my point is not that masturbation is inherently wrong, but, as murlough points says, I'm not sure how it could ever exist apart from the sinful act of lust. Thus, masturbation may not be a sin, but it's probably fair to assume that it's the sign of other sins within one's life.

I think we have to be careful about assuming that, though. The fact that one has sexual desires outside of marriage is not, in and of itself, lustful. We all pretty much have those (well, maybe a few of you are blessed enough to have no hormones, but I highly doubt it). The question is, what to do about them?

Most Christians seem to view marriage as the solution to this problem - just find a mate, tie the knot, then you can have all the sex you want, yay! But that isn't very helpful for folks who are nowhere near getting married, or who are married but for whatever reason their spouses aren't available for sex (and that could happen at times, even in a very healthy marriage). Sex outside of marriage not being an option, it seems the only recourses are:

1) Do nothing and let the sexual tension and desire get more intense (as I pointed out, the male body will eventually discharge this on its own; I don't know about the female body).
2) Masturbate.

Option 1 seems to make the craving worse, and sometimes even lead people to get married too soon just so they can get to the sex already. That's a lousy reason to get married, at least, if it becomes the primary reason. But I don't know that Option 2 is the only alternative to 1... however, I'm not yet convinced that it's a bad alternative.

If masturbation indicates lust, then apparently you're thinking about something lustful when masturbating. Is this a given that this will always be the case, though? You don't have to do it while looking at porn or conjuring up mental images of it in your head. You don't have to be thinking about someone that you're not married to. And ideally, if you're thinking about the person you are married to (or perhaps even will soon be married to; I can make some allowance for that because you know you'll be sharing sex as part of your marriage), that's not lust, unless you have an unhealthy focus on just that part of your relationship. Do you even have to be thinking about a person at all? Or just looking forward to enjoying an act that God created, who knows who it'll be with, and you don't have to try to actually visualize the person? Is that at least conceivably possible?

The definition of "lust" that I learned was all about wanting a person for only part of who they are. Usually sex comes to mind when lust is brought up - you want someone for their looks, how good they can make you feel, etc., without a desire attached for an actual commitment, really knowing the person deeply and intimately, caring whether they feel fulfilled by that sharing as well instead of just being used as an object to meet your needs, etc. Lust can also happen without sex - you could lust after someone's money, or power, or really any attribute they have, without consideration for the whole person. That's different from love, where sex will most certainly be involved if the love relationship makes it to marriage, and it's not wrong to want sex if you and that person love each other for the whole of who you are. Why would you marry them if you didn't want to have sex with them? That's part of the equation. So it makes sense that we can think about, and even look forward to, having sex with somebody before we're married to them. (I just wouldn't recommend dwelling on the topic too much when it comes to someone you're not even seriously involved with yet, or don't even know... and especially not someone you're just looking at in a magazine or on a website.)

Now, I'm sure that making this sound all nice in a conceptual sense is one thing, whereas actually controlling one's thoughts while masturbating is guaranteed to be a lot harder in practice. But controlling our thoughts is difficult in any event. So even if masturbation isn't in the picture, we need to focus on that issue of thought control. What it comes down to for me is not that sex should be this area of your mind that gets completely roped off and you can never go there if you're not married. it's just that, at all times, you need to maintain a realistic and healthy view of what it is, what it's supposed to be like for you when your time comes to experience it, etc. Porn will likely lead to highly unrealistic expectations... and our minds are good enough at inventing those. But I think one can look forward to a truly loving, intimate, sharing experience with someone they care about deeply, and not be in the wrong by doing that, because they don't expect what isn't realistic. They don't lust after something, degrade the other person, expect to receive without also giving, or expect to get what that other person will never be capable of giving to them.

[murlough23]

Adultery is sin, not only because it is lustful (it doesn't need to be), but because it is adulterous.

How can sex with another individual outside of its proper context not be lustful? It shows a disrespect toward the very idea of the marriage commitment... either to someone else's, or the one you're in, or both. You may full well have intentions of making a lifelong commitment to that person, and loving them for all that they are, once circumstances make you both available for that... but then you're both tearing apart such a commitment that has already been made between two people. In some ways, it makes the existing marriage a victim of lust.

Besides, most couple who cheat on existing spouses, and then get divorced so that they can marry each other, only end up repeating the same pattern once someone else new comes along. Not an empirical proof, but likely a telling sign.

Anyway, I didn't think you were endorsing adultery or anything, I just wanted to point out that adultery most certainly does involve lust.

Of course, there's the argument that masturbation is just having sex with yourself. But I'm not ever gonna leave my wife for myself... she's kind of a more fulfilling partner. So I'm not sure that argument really works, but I can see how a person could potentially become narcissistic about it.

[bloop]

The unqualified "it" was "masturbating without being sinful in lusting after a person".  I figured it was apparent as being a reply to someone else's ideas, but I apologize if I was unclear.

I think murlough has some pretty good ideas.  At least as I remember it, the person I was "having sex" with in my far younger years was rather disembodied.  It was the idea of sex that interested me, so I think it can be separated from lusting after any particular person, or even an envisioned mash-up of individuals.

Once married, however, many husbands and wives touch each other intimately in that way.  It's still considered masturbation, but in this case, it is not a solo activity and it is within the confines of marriage.  I see at least one clear counterexample in this possibility alone.

I don't like discussing this.  It makes me blush.

[murlough23]

I don't like discussing this.  It makes me blush.

I don't mind discussing it so much, but I always worry that I will embarass or offend others just by the mere mention of the topic. It's an impotant thing for the Church to be able to discuss this stuff and get it straight, so I figure it's worth soldiering on and working past the embarassment, which largely stems from the fact that no one ever talks about this stuff.

That said, there's a line where certain aspects of an intimate relationship need to be kept just between those two people, and I'm still figuring out where that line is. I want to share what experience I have on the topic in order to help fellow Christians, but I don't want to turn this into an X-rated game of kiss-and-tell or anything. Sex is good stuff, when done in its proper context. At times I want to shout that from the rooftop because the Church is so down on anything sexual. But... proper context.

[BennieM]

How can sex with another individual outside of its proper context not be lustful?

The proper question is, How can sex with another individual outside of its proper context not involve lust on behalf of both parties? And one answer has already been given. An example is, perhaps, a duped and silly person who thinks they are doing a service by giving someone an heir (someone who has charity without the wisdom to make it whole). Of course, the person who wants the heir is using someone for only part of what and who they are. But the heir-giver is not using someone for part of themself. Not if they are sincerely convinced in their being duped.

But that was not my main point. My main point is still sitting on the shelf.

Jesus said lusting was adulterous. But he did not say adultery was lusting. I still don't understand why the physical dimension is being discarded. Surely there is a reason, other than preferring the simplicity of lust=adultery(or fornication)=lust. Yes, that is simple. It is pat. But I don't see it supported by what Jesus actually said. He condemned lusting because it was adultery (or fornication, presumably) in your heart. But he never said the sole offence in adultery or fornication was lust.

If that is the case, then why is the only argument for the acceptability of masturbation that 'it need not involve lust'? Surely you must prove something else, too: 'it is not fornication'.


And thank you, bloop. I'm sorry, though, that it makes you uncomfortable to have to clarify.    

[murlough23]

If that is the case, then why is the only argument for the acceptability of masturbation that 'it need not involve lust'? Surely you must prove something else, too: 'it is not fornication'.

Well, your examples may have proven that one of the two parties involved in adultery may not be lusting... but it'd be a leap to say they both aren't (and I still think it's a leap to say that the one isn't). Nevertheless, intentionally tempting someone to lust is probably wrong, I'd wager. So the person doing the "duping" or whatever would still be culpable. At least, that sounds right.

I thought the whole point of Jesus' "lusting after a woman in your heart" speech was to indicate that physical sexual sin cannot take place without that seed of mental sexual sin (e.g. lust) first being present. A lot of who condemn those who commit the physical sins are no better; we still commit the mental sins. So I don't think the physical dimension is being "ignored" here, because as far as adultery goes, I don't think any of us is arguing it's OK. It's just that the mental dimension is a far more widespread problem.

Adultery was condemned outright in the Bible; masturbation as a physical act seems to only be considered wrong as a secondary bi-product, an "acting-out" of some other sin inside. So I'm questioning whether the physical act (which, in and of itself, is not singled out in the Bible) can exist separately from that which is condemned in the Bible - lust. If the two can realistically be separated, then voila - no more problem with masturbation. At least, ideally. Realistically there could still be the "slippery slope" problem, I suppose. But that makes it a grey area and not a bona fide sin, I think.

[BennieM]

So the person doing the "duping" or whatever would still be culpable. At least, that sounds right.

The person doing the duping was already lusting. It's the other person (the fool) that may not be lusting.

I thought the whole point of Jesus' "lusting after a woman in your heart" speech was to indicate that physical sexual sin cannot take place without that seed of mental sexual sin (e.g. lust) first being present.

That has never been the traditional understanding. And indeed it is not what Jesus says. He says that lusting is evil because it is adultery in your heart. He does not say that adultery is wrong because it involves lusting.

So I'm questioning whether the physical act (which, in and of itself, is not singled out in the Bible) can exist separately from that which is condemned in the Bible - lust. If the two can realistically be separated, then voila - no more problem with masturbation.

Assuming that things are only wrong if they are 'singled out in the Bible', yes. But that's a silly criterion. It's a recipe for legalism. (In fact it already is legalism.) Things can be implicit as well as explicit.

And if adultery is wrong because it involves a certain physical reality (willful sexual response separated from your wife or husband), then that would also be what constitutes fornication. And under that definition, masturbation is fornication.

The question is this: In reading the Bible, is it possible to believe that adultery is wrong for a different reason than its certain physical reality (willful sexual response separated from your wife or husband)? Is that what makes adultery wrong? Or rather, is that what adultery is? (Remember, Jesus does not say that it is wrong because it involves lusting. He says that lusting is wrong because it is like adultery--rather, because it is adultery, but in your heart.)

[bloop]

And thank you, bloop. I'm sorry, though, that it makes you uncomfortable to have to clarify. 

No, man.  It makes me uncomfortable to discuss personal details so much, but it seemed like I could only go in that direction with the conversation.

And if adultery is wrong because it involves a certain physical reality (willful sexual response separated from your wife or husband), then that would also be what constitutes fornication. And under that definition, masturbation is fornication.

Under this definition, masturbation is not always fornication.  While I'm not quite willing to subscribe to this definition of fornication as being divorced from involving another person entirely (every definition for adultery I know specifically details another person's involvement), I will say that it leaves open the possibility for mutual masturbation by a married couple and may even leave the door open to private masturbation if the spouse knows and approves of it.  In each case, one's spouse is not cut off.  Again, even under this concept, masturbation itself is not always wrong because it can involve the married couple together.

[BennieM]

Under this definition, masturbation is not always fornication.  While I'm not quite willing to subscribe to this definition of fornication as being divorced from involving another person entirely (every definition for adultery I know specifically details another person's involvement), I will say that it leaves open the possibility for mutual masturbation by a married couple a  In each case, one's spouse is not cut off.  Again, even under this concept, masturbation itself is not always wrong because it can involve the married couple together.

This is true.

and may even leave the door open to private masturbation if the spouse knows and approves of it.

I don't see how. Approval hardly constitutes involvement.

[bloop]

Approval hardly constitutes involvement.

That's arguable in itself, but so too were the premises that I was working with that I got from your post just for the sake of argument.  I think a system that splits hairs between phone sex with a spouse and masturbating with their full knowledge and approval is just a little bit legalistic in itself.

Assuming that things are only wrong if they are 'singled out in the Bible', yes. But that's a silly criterion. It's a recipe for legalism. (In fact it already is legalism.) Things can be implicit as well as explicit.

I wanted to add that I think you're being a little unfair with murlough's reason here.  He's not arguing that it isn't singled out in the Bible, therefore it is ok.  He's arguing that it's not singled out in the Bible, therefore its moral status is an open question - that he's doubting the traditional (and rather prudish) ideas that aren't Biblical in nature.

[murlough23]

The person doing the duping was already lusting. It's the other person (the fool) that may not be lusting.

They're still enabling lustful behavior on the part of the other person, though. I mean, could someone really be that stupid, to get into a situation like that and seriously think it was for the good of them and the other person? (Maybe if they didn't know the other person was married, I guess, but still...)

We can probably still say that a very large chunk of all cases of adultery involve lust. Maybe you're right and there could conceivably be a few that don't. Adultery apart from lust is certainly an interesting concept. Obviously it's still sin; as we were pretty directly commanded not to sleep with another person's spouse. As for the "why", that seems to be a simple matter of not taking the marriage covenant seriously. I don't know; it still falls under my understanding of lust, but I'm willing to let that argument drop as it's mostly semantics-driven. (As many of my debates with Bennie tend to be.)

That has never been the traditional understanding. And indeed it is not what Jesus says. He says that lusting is evil because it is adultery in your heart. He does not say that adultery is wrong because it involves lusting.

It sounds like you're saying "All A's are B" and I'm saying "All B's are A". Both A and B are clearly sins, so I'm not sure how much it matters whether one can be grouped under the other. In practice, we're rarely, if ever, going to find one apart from the other, since by Jesus' definition, the adultery has already been committed when we take that first improper glance, hence proving your point that all lust is adultery. But how could you possibly commit physical adultery without first committing it mentally? That's the part I don't get.

In other words, you first commit the mental adultery, which is defined as looking at someone to lust after them. (Can you commit mental adultery any other way? I'm confused there.) Then, if left unchecked, this leads to the physical adultery. I'm not sure how the progression could happen without that mental seed existing first.

That's why I said what I said about all adultery starting with a seed of lust. Jesus wasn't saying, "Adultery is wrong, specifically because it involves lust". He was saying, "You already know adultery is wrong; I don't really need to tell you why. But lust is also wrong, because it is tantamount to mental adultery. If you've looked lustfully, then you're just as bad as the guy who slept with someone else's wife." Does that make sense? It wasn't to make a distinction in terms of legalities - it was to indicate that pretty much every man who has ever breathed and had hormones has been susceptible to this sin - even the nice, upstanding pillars of society who haven't slept around and have been "faithful" to their wives for half a century.

Assuming that things are only wrong if they are 'singled out in the Bible', yes. But that's a silly criterion. It's a recipe for legalism. (In fact it already is legalism.) Things can be implicit as well as explicit.

Sure, plenty of stuff in the Bible is implicit. I don't intend for "singled out in the Bible" to "stated literally". Things are referred to using euphemisms and so forth... but we often have problems where an umbrella term like "sexual immorality" gets mentioned, and someone will use that to make a case about a specific sexual act, without any basis for why that sexual act falls under that umbrella statement. Circular reasoning. I'm trying to avoid that by assuming that "lust", "adultery", etc. are umbrella terms that include masturbation, unless we can clearly show that masturbation necessarily involves lust, adultery, or whatever else the Bible forbids.

And if adultery is wrong because it involves a certain physical reality (willful sexual response separated from your wife or husband), then that would also be what constitutes fornication. And under that definition, masturbation is fornication.

That's the crux of the argument. Is the problem willfull sexual response apart from your partner, or willful sexual response to someone other than your partner? Those are two very different things.

Does a sexual response always need to be a response to another person? That's an important question. If I think about a specific person while masturbating, or look at that person, that sure, that person is part of that sexual response. But we haven't shown that this is always what's being done when a person masturbates. I don't know how we'd go about proving that, quite frankly.

The question is this: In reading the Bible, is it possible to believe that adultery is wrong for a different reason than its certain physical reality (willful sexual response separated from your wife or husband)? Is that what makes adultery wrong? Or rather, is that what adultery is? (Remember, Jesus does not say that it is wrong because it involves lusting. He says that lusting is wrong because it is like adultery--rather, because it is adultery, but in your heart.)

Right, that gets back to the whole "chicken or the egg" scenario from earlier. I don't disagree with your assessment here. I guess my definition of lust is broader than yours, because I still have trouble wrapping my head around the concept of adultery without lust serving as an impetus for it. If I could, then I'd have found myself justifying adultery in certain cases, which would be scary.

Moral of the story: Just saying "Well, no lust is involved" is not, in and of itself, sufficient to prove that an act is not a sin.

I will say that it leaves open the possibility for mutual masturbation by a married couple and may even leave the door open to private masturbation if the spouse knows and approves of it.

I certainly agree that it does leave that door open, which, by extension, leaves the door open for masturbation (in moderation, of course - that's a default statement you can apply to any endorsement I'd give to the act) for the unmarried. If I'm OK with the concept of my spouse "taking care of herself" while I'm away on a business trip or otherwise incapacitated, then I'm also OK with the concept of her doing that before she has a marriage partner available. If (a) it was a constant, obsessive thing, (b) she was thinking about someone else while doing it, or © it was resulting in sex between us being neglected, that would certainly be problematic. But that's not because it's masturbation, that's because (a) being that obsessed with most activities would probably be unhealthy, (b) involving a person who is not your spouse and who has not agreed to become your spouse in your sexual fantasies is lust, © sex between married couples is not supposed to be neglected when it's reasonable for both partners to partake.

[murlough23]

phone sex

Careful with that. You could contract a nasty ear infection.

I wanted to add that I think you're being a little unfair with murlough's reason here.  He's not arguing that it isn't singled out in the Bible, therefore it is ok.  He's arguing that it's not singled out in the Bible, therefore its moral status is an open question - that he's doubting the traditional (and rather prudish) ideas that aren't Biblical in nature.

Thanks for that. Actually, I'd go a step beyond it being an "open question", and say that I'd rather lean towards leniency rather than strictness when we can't see something being mentioned in the Bible. The only way to "close" the question would be with the Bible, so of course the question is open until we've looked more deeply. But I was talking about a deeper reading, not just a surface assessment that the word "masturbation" isn't explicitly mentioned. If we've tried and we can't reveal any reason why not, then I'd rather not keep the rule around "just 'cause".

I don't think we're expected to derive universal moral standards from anything other than the Bible... are we? God may speak to individual people and tell them that they are to do or not do certain things, but I can't see any universal moral revelation coming from anywhere other than God's established principles in the Bible. Anything God's gonna tell us after that fact is, in my opinion, an application of what God already said in the Bible.

But that's a whole other topic.

NP: "The River", Cindy Morgan

[BennieM]

I don't think we're expected to derive universal moral standards from anything other than the Bible... are we? God may speak to individual people and tell them that they are to do or not do certain things, but I can't see any universal moral revelation coming from anywhere other than God's established principles in the Bible. Anything God's gonna tell us after that fact is, in my opinion, an application of what God already said in the Bible.

But that's a whole other topic.

It must be, because I have no idea whatsoever what the words you've said actually mean.  

Of course in hearing what someone says you will know who he is. But you may not, from that hearing, know all who he is. Yet everything he is was actually contained in what you heard; he couldn't have said X exactly as he did, if he didn't believe Y (which he didn't say).

To me, that means the 'universal moral standards' (dreadful phrase) are all in the Bible. But I shouldn't expect to find them as if I were prodding about for them.

They're still enabling lustful behavior on the part of the other person, though. I mean, could someone really be that stupid, to get into a situation like that and seriously think it was for the good of them and the other person?

I don't know. I'm just trying to get imagination out there. Since the two things are not (in their basic definitions) exact equals, there must be a way for them to be manifested separately. It might require really fancy (even quite ridiculous) machinations. But it must be possible.

Actually, now I think of it, I do have a well constructed example. In The Nine Tailors by Dorothy L. Sayers, one man fakes his death. His wife remarries. Her new husband eventually discovers the truth. He continues as if he knew nothing. (Obviously the first marriage is still valid, so he and his wife are not, legally or religiously, married. It's rather nasty of the first husband, really. The first marriage was still on.) So the wife does not know that she is actually sleeping with someone to whom she's 'not married'. Now, ignore the wife's position. It's quite debatable if she's anything to blame at all. Probably not. But look at the second husband. (He does consider the first marriage to be still on, whether we would or not.) For a few days he lets on that nothing is wrong. He, on his own view, commits adultery out of fear; he doesn't want people to find out. I seriously doubt he does it out of lust (wanting someone for part of who they are). It's fear.

It sounds like you're saying "All A's are B" and I'm saying "All B's are A". Both A and B are clearly sins, so I'm not sure how much it matters whether one can be grouped under the other.

I'm saying, "All A's are B," because that is what Jesus actually said. To me it matters if you say "All Bs are A," because that affects how you think. And Jesus didn't actually say, "All Bs are A." It may be true. All Bs may indeed be A. But it must be important that he didn't actually say it. It must show us something about his thinking.

The point is not the grouping. It's thinking along the same lines as Jesus.

But how could you possibly commit physical adultery without first committing it mentally?

You can't.

But adultery can be committed in your head without lust. That is the point.

In other words, you first commit the mental adultery, which is defined as looking at someone to lust after them.

By your definition, yes. But that definition is based upon a misreading of the actual words of the Gospels.

Mental adultery is committed when you lust after someone. Yes, Jesus did say that. Going that far you must be correct, on the authority of the Gospels. Mental adultery is committed when you lust after someone. But that does not mean it cannot be committed otherwise.

He was saying, "You already know adultery is wrong; I don't really need to tell you why. But lust is also wrong, because it is tantamount to mental adultery. If you've looked lustfully, then you're just as bad as the guy who slept with someone else's wife." Does that make sense?

That's what I'm saying! That's not what you've been saying.

I'm trying to avoid that by assuming that "lust", "adultery", etc. are umbrella terms that include masturbation, unless we can clearly show that masturbation necessarily involves lust, adultery, or whatever else the Bible forbids.

I think we need to explicitly add to the list, 'fornication' (sexual activity or sex or something-like-so-yet-undefined without being married). If it's not explicit, we're bound to mess up. Well, I would be, anyway.

We can probably still say that a very large chunk of all cases of adultery involve lust.

Oh, for sure! A 'large chunk' almost sounds like a low estimate, even--if that's possible.

I guess my definition of lust is broader than yours

No worries. I think you said it was 'wanting someone for only part of who they are'? I completely agree! =)


bloop:

I think a system that splits hairs between phone sex with a spouse and masturbating with their full knowledge and approval is just a little bit legalistic in itself.

That is a result of my 'system' (an ugly word which I do not want applied to working definitions) being poorly phrased. But my point is still that I think (something like) 'the physical reality of sexual activity outside the proper context of marriage' (still perhaps a flawed wording!) is implicit in every word the Bible has on adultery.

And if you're really saying I sound legalistic, I don't think you know what legalism is. Having boudnaries with definitions is not legalism. That is law. Legalism is working loopholes and poking words for nits--poking words at all, really. Legalism is in interpretting a law, not in trying to define it. I couldn't possibly be being legalistic, because I was not trying to interpret anything in the comment you were discussing.

He's arguing that it's not singled out in the Bible, therefore its moral status is an open question - that he's doubting the traditional (and rather prudish) ideas that aren't Biblical in nature.

To me that sounds silly. I see this in the Bible. I cannot honestly read the Bible without thinking it is implicit.

[bloop]

And if you're really saying I sound legalistic, I don't think you know what legalism is. Having boudnaries with definitions is not legalism. That is law. Legalism is working loopholes and poking words for nits--poking words at all, really. Legalism is in interpretting a law, not in trying to define it. I couldn't possibly be being legalistic, because I was not trying to interpret anything in the comment you were discussing.

I can't disagree.  Much of this is about interpretation, namely yours.  Adultery, as I read it and understand it, involves another individual in one's heart, or in deed, or both (can "another individual" include a fictional character, a hentai, or some kind of mental collage of a person? - I am unsure, but any is at least be a slippery slope, so I'll include these).  Masturbation can fall under adultery, and no one is arguing that can't.  The problem is, by your own admission, not masturbation because you have already acknowledged a scenario in which it is not sinful (namely, the mutual one).  So, what's left after that is the solitary act, or "vice" if you want to get all Victorian on our asses.  I'm not seeing a spouse's knowledge and consent as being cut-off, separated as you put it, but I think you are speaking of "separated" in the literal sense.  With phone sex, the couple is not physically together but the spouses are involved directly, so maybe that's enough for you.  One step beyond that is the solitary act with the spouse's knowledge and approval.  To my way of thinking, this is not "separated" because I'm thinking about the word differently (and, also, I take adultery to necessarily involve another in thought or deed - one's own wife is clearly not another).  It seems to me that the line you draw is arbitrary, and not supported, implicitly or otherwise, in the Bible.  Legalism often does give rise to self-created law, aided by the strict interpretation of specific words, and I think this is a case in point.

Masturbation before marriage is a somewhat more complicated issue, and I think murlough is doing a better job than I could do on it.  I do know that it need not involve envisioning a person at all, but that's not your entire issue with it anyway.

(On a side note, I find it striking that the Bible would be explicitly silent on an issue that apparently effects 95%+ of the adolescent to adult male population today.  I know it's not a serious argument, but it just seems odd to me.)

Oh yeah, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me ignorant or stupid, even in your ever so eloquent words, thanks.  I know I'm not a wordsmith, and I don't need reminded.

[BennieM]

[bloop]

I have not done so. I said that definition of mine was poorly phrased. I have neither agreed nor disagreed on that point; I was trying to keep it ambiguous for the time being. It's something that is probably better handled only as a result of other things, it being what it is.

I misunderstood, then.  Are you planning on doing anything with it, then?

Legalism often does give rise to self-created law, aided by the strict interpretation of specific words, and I think this is a case in point.

Interestingly, your redefinition of legalism would be (by your redefinition of legalism) a legalism.

What you quoted is not a definition, but merely common mark of its presence.  But, it was poorly worded.  "A strict interpretation of words" seems to really be a rather loose interpretation that is inclusive of things unintended by the author.

I do know that it need not involve envisioning a person at all, but that's not your entire issue with it anyway.

I agree. Except you make it sound as if it's my opinion I'm purporting, not just some traditional argument that's been (so far) unanswered.

Then I can only say that you're doing a lousy job getting your own traditional opinion across.  It's unclear to me what the traditional opinion that makes you think the way you do is, exactly.  It's like fighting a phantom, to be honest.

Oh yeah, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me ignorant or stupid, even in your ever so eloquent words, thanks.

I didn't. If I'd called you ignorant or stupid, it wouldn't have been 'eloquent'. Trust me. wink.gif

Correcting someone and saying that, to the cornered and outnumbered proponent, something sounds 'silly' are just that: correcting someone and putting your own intelligence on the line. Those are not insults. When I insult people, it is blatant (but thank God I don't do that as much anymore).

I feel corrected when corrected, attacked when attacked.  I'll let it be, though, and assume you have the best of intentions.  I think we're working from the same definition for legalism.  You find that you're merely reading what is really implicit in the Bible.  I believe you are adding to it, in a sense, making it include more than it reads.  It is a difference in the way we are reading those passages, but am often right that legalism tends to add nonexistent law to the books that also need be followed.  This isn't about a misunderstanding of what legalism is at any rate.  We could break out Merriam Webster if you like and I could explain exactly in what sense I'm using it.

Much of this is about interpretation, namely yours.

Then I think you misunderstand me...? 'Interpretting' (to me) sounds as if you start with a text and try to get a meaning. I have specifically said, 'I cannot honestly read the Bible without thinking it is implicit.' Now, I may be wrong. But I'm not wrong because I'm 'interpretting' (unless your idea of 'interpretting' differs greatly from mine).

And as I'm not out to interpret, I'm not being legalistic. You must intend interpretation (not simply intend reading) to be legalistic. I only intend to read. You can be wrong in doing that. But you can't be legalistic.

Then, I guess I just don't understand what's so blasted implicitly obvious in the Bible on this issue.  It seems to me, and I'm sure others, that there is some interpretive work to do to arrive at your conclusions.  So, do you care to spell out why it's just so barn door obvious?

If A=B or if all Bs are A (in murlough's terms), certainly. But I don't know where you're getting the idea that A=B (or all Bs are A). Jesus specifically did not argue that. (He argued that all As are Bs.) And that has not been the traditional understanding of the concepts.

Unfaithfulness is what I understand when I read about adultery in the Bible. After all, it is what the whore passages in the Prophets tell about: unfaithfulness. And so far as I'm aware, you can be unfaithful to one person without even thinking of another. Atheists, even agnostics, are just as unfaithful as the lambasted idol-worshipping Jews in Ezekiel. And, for that matter, though it may not be relevant, so were Jews who didn't worship in the specific way that God meant for his worship to be enjoined.

Idol-worship is adkin to adultery in our relationship with God, and Atheism is the worship of a concept, whether it be leaving a legacy, autonomy, or an improper application of science to imply there isn't a God.  It's a love affair with a concept rather than the Person who created them.  It all still involves some other, but we are really talking about a different commandment, are we not, so I'd rather not equivocate here except to just draw that similarity.  Adultery, denotatively, requires another in its traditional understanding.  If you don't mind that "other person" to be one's self (which makes absolutely no sense to me), then I can see an argument from that, albeit one that is decidedly not in the traditional understanding nor the denotative meaning of "adultery".

[BennieM]

[bloop]

I don't agree, because your wording seems to drop the metaphor altogether (it doesn't feel right, that's all I can say: it no longer feels like a metaphor); but--agnosticism, where does it fit in?

I think our understanding of adultery should help us understand faith better, which should help us understand adultery better... I can get that from my thinking. But the metaphors sound like they start to fall flat with yours... (Again, that's all I can say. It's not very intelligent, but there you go.)

Maybe.  I agree that an understanding of adultery can help mold our thinking in terms of our relationship with God, but I do believe that everyone has a god, even if that God isn't a Person.  I'm not even sure I want to get into agnosticism as I'm a bit perplexed by those who hold that philosophy.

But does a 'love affair with oneself' really not make sense?

As you said, it makes more sense as pride than adultery to me.  And, again, no one is arguing that it's good to become narcissistic about masturbation or anything else, so it's a little off-topic anyway.

Perhaps it would be more representative if you said that adultery, as well as spiritual unfaithfulness, can be what you call 'atheism', but applied to humans: 'a love affair with a concept' rather than with a person. And sexual satisfaction is, too, a concept. As is feeling better.

Sexuality isn't to be worshipped or to be the focus of one's life, but it isn't a bad thing, and it was faulty of the church fathers to think of it in the rather repressed way that they did.  Some of the things I listed, like one's legacy aren't bad, but it can be the thing one focuses on too much in the absence of a belief in much else that is long-lasting or greater than themselves.

As I see it, though, the burden of proof would be on you to show this specific thing isn't one of many freedoms (a freedom I think people should be wary of, but a freedom nonetheless).  I can't argue that it absolutely is because I would only be arguing from silence.  But, mere tradition and appealing to "most Christians" isn't going to get us anywhere, really.  I mean, we're talking about the same group whose predecessors said it causes insanity and pimples, so it's not like they haven't been wrong before.

You say

I never said it was obvious. Please don't get upset.

I only said that I can't help but thinking it implicit, however hard I try.

Simple or complex, that you can't help but think it's implicit doesn't help me see where it is.  If you get down to the nitty gritty of what scripture says, and the way you're applying it to the issue, then I might understand where you're coming from better.  Since I'm not reading this in implicitly as you are, this kind of statement just isn't getting us anywhere.

Just so you know, I do tend to take directives, including those found in the Bible (maybe even especially the Bible) at face value (see the controversial Bono statement thread), but it isn't impossible to convince me that something is implicit.  I just need more than "well, it's implicit to me, and I can't help that it is".

(btw, it isn't hard to get satisfaction in who one is from God, and it is only sometimes difficult through other people, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.  I'm not sure how any of this applies to the specifics of what we're talking about, though.)

[BennieM]

[bloop]

I don't usually think in terms of 'freedoms'. Do you mean 'something neither moral nor immoral' as 'freedom'? Like, 'Do you want coffee or tea or chocolate?' (Of course, really truly obsessing over tea is bad. But preferring tea, drinking it when it's offered, loving it, enjoying it, is not.) Is that what you mean by 'a freedom'?

Yes, that's what I mean by a freedom.  A morally neutral thing with pitfalls.  Drinking, from what I can tell, is a freedom with potential (but not necessarily present) pitfalls as well, but I don't want to make this about alcohol so please disregard if you disagree with this specific.

If that is what you mean, then no, I won't do that. I can prove nothing. I am not a philosopher, nor do I wish to be one. I can argue that something lets you read the Bible more clearly and in a more lively and engaging way (and the only way to prove me wrong is to give it a good honest try yourself). I can argue that something makes sense, that something is not what you initially thought it was, that something is fundamentally exciting, engaging, and amusing (as all Christian doctrine is). But I don't know how to prove it. And I'm really not interested in doing so. Nothing that I've ever proved that way has held my devotion for long.

Are you saying you read it implicitly because it makes your reading of the Bible more lively and engaging in some kind of literary way?  I do think that has the potential to give you an interesting rendering that's something of a pile of horsepoo in the end, but you may not be saying that.

I think anyone is capable of philosophy, so why leave it to the experts when the fundamentals of their field would help us on our current subject?  Proofs are a very compelling thing for me.  If you're speaking of something I'm not quite understanding here, then you may be able to get to me through that venue, but something logically mapped for anyone to follow is likely going to be of more interest to me than anything else.

To be fair, I have tried. Remember the As and Bs? I'm the only one who's actually trying to get everyone to actually think in terms of the actual words in the Bible. I do think that makes a difference. It strikes me as very suspect about someone's case when they misquote the Bible.

The only thing that usually strikes me about that is that they didn't open their Bible to get the precise wording (I know some things are in the Bible, but I can't always find them very quickly), but I haven't quoted the Bible here yet, so I'm not sure who you're talking about.  Also, you have to remember that even you are not thinking of the actual words of the Bible, unless you're a Greek/Hebrew scholar of some sort, and surely you don't expect everyone to be able to work with that.  But, now that you mention it, my Bible is opened to Matthew 5 (not the exact words of the Bible - ESV translation), and I'm just not taking what I'm seeing there to imply the same thing you are.

[BennieM]