Is masturbation immoral?

[Bono]

It's immoral according to the Bible

Really?

Yeah, the Sin of Onan and whatnot.  "Spilling one's seed"

The sin of Onan was not impregnate his wife to give his brother a descendancy.

Quoting this because no one notices the last post of a page.

The precise verses from Genesis are:

"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.

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

One could interpret "the thing which he did" in different ways.

Ever heard of context?

[Emsworth]

It's immoral according to the Bible

Really?

Yeah, the Sin of Onan and whatnot.  "Spilling one's seed"

The sin of Onan was not impregnate his wife to give his brother a descendancy.

Quoting this because no one notices the last post of a page.

The precise verses from Genesis are:

"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.

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

One could interpret "the thing which he did" in different ways.

Ever heard of context?

Your rather curt response is entirely misdirected. I do not interpret the Bible one way or the other. I say that it can legitimately be interpreted in different ways.

[Bono]

It's immoral according to the Bible

Really?

Yeah, the Sin of Onan and whatnot.  "Spilling one's seed"

The sin of Onan was not impregnate his wife to give his brother a descendancy.

Quoting this because no one notices the last post of a page.

The precise verses from Genesis are:

"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.

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

One could interpret "the thing which he did" in different ways.

Ever heard of context?

Your rather curt response is entirely misdirected. I do not interpret the Bible one way or the other. I say that it can legitimately be interpreted in different ways.

No, it can be interpreted in one right way and many wrong ways.

[Emsworth]

No, it can be interpreted in one right way and many wrong ways.

And you decide, of course, which interpretation is correct?

[Bono]

No, it can be interpreted in one right way and many wrong ways.

And you decide, of course, which interpretation is correct?

No. I'm not perfec and thus can make mistakes. I'm simply stating that there is one correct interpretation, even if we don't or can't know it totally.

[Alcon]

No, it can be interpreted in one right way and many wrong ways.

And you decide, of course, which interpretation is correct?

No. I'm not perfec and thus can make mistakes. I'm simply stating that there is one correct interpretation, even if we don't or can't know it totally.

How do we know that God even intended one interpretation?  He may have wanted this.

[Bono]

No, it can be interpreted in one right way and many wrong ways.

And you decide, of course, which interpretation is correct?

No. I'm not perfec and thus can make mistakes. I'm simply stating that there is one correct interpretation, even if we don't or can't know it totally.

How do we know that God even intended one interpretation?  He may have wanted this.

The fact that God may have wanteddifferent interpretations to arise has no bearing on the fact that one interpretation is true.

[Emsworth]

No, it can be interpreted in one right way and many wrong ways.

And you decide, of course, which interpretation is correct?

No. I'm not perfec and thus can make mistakes. I'm simply stating that there is one correct interpretation, even if we don't or can't know it totally.

How do we know that God even intended one interpretation?  He may have wanted this.

The fact that God may have wanteddifferent interpretations to arise has no bearing on the fact that one interpretation is true.

And how do you know that this is a "fact"?

[Bono]

No, it can be interpreted in one right way and many wrong ways.

And you decide, of course, which interpretation is correct?

No. I'm not perfec and thus can make mistakes. I'm simply stating that there is one correct interpretation, even if we don't or can't know it totally.

How do we know that God even intended one interpretation?  He may have wanted this.

The fact that God may have wanteddifferent interpretations to arise has no bearing on the fact that one interpretation is true.

And how do you know that this is a "fact"?

How do you know it's not?

[Emsworth]

No, it can be interpreted in one right way and many wrong ways.

And you decide, of course, which interpretation is correct?

No. I'm not perfec and thus can make mistakes. I'm simply stating that there is one correct interpretation, even if we don't or can't know it totally.

How do we know that God even intended one interpretation?  He may have wanted this.

The fact that God may have wanteddifferent interpretations to arise has no bearing on the fact that one interpretation is true.

And how do you know that this is a "fact"?

How do you know it's not?

I am not the one who has made the assertion. The assertion was made by you: I said nothing.

[Bono]

No, it can be interpreted in one right way and many wrong ways.

And you decide, of course, which interpretation is correct?

No. I'm not perfec and thus can make mistakes. I'm simply stating that there is one correct interpretation, even if we don't or can't know it totally.

How do we know that God even intended one interpretation?  He may have wanted this.

The fact that God may have wanteddifferent interpretations to arise has no bearing on the fact that one interpretation is true.

And how do you know that this is a "fact"?

How do you know it's not?

I am not the one who has made the assertion. The assertion was made by you: I said nothing.

Even if you don't believe the writers of the Bible were not divinely inspired, they still wanted to put across some message in their writings. The interpretation that coincides with the message they were trying to transmit is the correct one.

[Emsworth]

Even if you don't believe the writers of the Bible were not divinely inspired, they still wanted to put across some message in their writings. The interpretation that coincides with the message they were trying to transmit is the correct one.

Let's accept that the Bible is a divinely inspired text.

Your argument relies on the presumption that God wanted to put across one single message. It is possible that God wanted to allow the readers to interpret it differently, for God to put across several messages.

[Nation]

Even if you don't believe the writers of the Bible were not divinely inspired, they still wanted to put across some message in their writings. The interpretation that coincides with the message they were trying to transmit is the correct one.

Let's accept that the Bible is a divinely inspired text.

Your argument relies on the presumption that God wanted to put across one single message. It is possible that God wanted to allow the readers to interpret it differently, for God to put across several messages.

I'll admit that's possible, but some verses clearly have one meaning, and are more-or-less absolute statements. So perhaps the Bible has some verses that are open to interpretation, and others that are not?

I'll admit, I'm much more inclined to believe that there is in fact ONE correct interpretation for almost all verses, even if we don't know what it is.

[Bono]

Even if you don't believe the writers of the Bible were not divinely inspired, they still wanted to put across some message in their writings. The interpretation that coincides with the message they were trying to transmit is the correct one.

Let's accept that the Bible is a divinely inspired text.

Your argument relies on the presumption that God wanted to put across one single message. It is possible that God wanted to allow the readers to interpret it differently, for God to put across several messages.

So there would be multiple right interpretations, but not infinite. Ie, mostninterpretations would still be wrong, and a few would be right. That is not the same as no interpretation being right.

[Emsworth]

So there would be multiple right interpretations, but not infinite. Ie, mostninterpretations would still be wrong, and a few would be right.

That's the point I was trying to make. More than one interpretation could be "correct."

That is what I meant when I said that the verses quoted from Genesis could be interpreted in more than one way.

[Bono]

So there would be multiple right interpretations, but not infinite. Ie, mostninterpretations would still be wrong, and a few would be right.

That's the point I was trying to make. More than one interpretation could be "correct."

That is what I meant when I said that the verses quoted from Genesis could be interpreted in more than one way.

There is, of course, nothing in which to base your a-priori, so the point is moot.

[Emsworth]

So there would be multiple right interpretations, but not infinite. Ie, mostninterpretations would still be wrong, and a few would be right.

That's the point I was trying to make. More than one interpretation could be "correct."

That is what I meant when I said that the verses quoted from Genesis could be interpreted in more than one way.

There is, of course, nothing in which to base your a-priori, so the point is moot.

And of course there is so much on which to base the assertion that the Bible is correct in the first place.

[The Dowager Mod]

Anything remotely fun is "Immoral"

[dazzleman]

*bump*

Classic thread!

I agree man.  I listed this thread as the funniest thing I've ever seen posted here.

[Bono]

So there would be multiple right interpretations, but not infinite. Ie, mostninterpretations would still be wrong, and a few would be right.

That's the point I was trying to make. More than one interpretation could be "correct."

That is what I meant when I said that the verses quoted from Genesis could be interpreted in more than one way.

There is, of course, nothing in which to base your a-priori, so the point is moot.

And of course there is so much on which to base the assertion that the Bible is correct in the first place.

I thought I was in the mood for sea food. Oh, look, red herring.

[MissCatholic]

Nope i play with myself on the odd occasion.

That's good of you to admit that.  Isn't masturbation healthy?

Well it releases chemicals that make you happy. Cant remember the name begins with S. But its the same chemical that you release when you eat chocolate or something that tastes really good. But medically it does clean up your functions. Men need to play with themselves more especially the prostate as if not monitored can be a cause of prostate cancer. Alot of older men get prostate cancer and their is a suspecion that it is due to impotency. As their cant play with themselves the sperm just builds up and leads to cancer. So it is helathy for men. Women i'm sure it is but just mentally. Hence we do it far less or alot of women never do it.

[Ebowed]

By the way, John Kerry had prostate cancer... connect the dots.  Maybe he wasn't the Catholic in Name Only everyone said he was. 

[MissCatholic]

By the way, John Kerry had prostate cancer... connect the dots.  Maybe he wasn't the Catholic in Name Only everyone said he was. 

hehe i always wondered why teresa looked angry.

[??????????]

Nope i play with myself on the odd occasion.

That's good of you to admit that.  Isn't masturbation healthy?

Well it releases chemicals that make you happy. Cant remember the name begins with S. But its the same chemical that you release when you eat chocolate or something that tastes really good. But medically it does clean up your functions. Men need to play with themselves more especially the prostate as if not monitored can be a cause of prostate cancer. Alot of older men get prostate cancer and their is a suspecion that it is due to impotency. As their cant play with themselves the sperm just builds up and leads to cancer. So it is helathy for men. Women i'm sure it is but just mentally. Hence we do it far less or alot of women never do it.

Well, I guess I'll never have to be concerned with prostate cancer then, eh?

[minionofmidas]

No, it can be interpreted in one right way and many wrong ways.

And you decide, of course, which interpretation is correct?

No. I'm not perfec and thus can make mistakes.

See. That's the difference between you and me.