How dire of a sin is masturbation?

[loinburger]

Wait for the poll. For the sake of simplicity I will assume that male and female masturbation is equivalent, as is gay and straight masturbation.

Slowwhand, we get it, you don't think atheists should be allowed to post threads, your opinion has already been noted so there is no need to reiterate it.

[SlowwHand]

I didn't say that, dumbass.

To answer your thread's question, it's not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's only not a sin if you are thinking of Jesus

[MikeH]

Depends if it's on tits or face.

[Japher]

Depends on what you are thinking about.

Okay:
Members of the opposite sex
Baked pastries
Water
Bob Barker

Borderline:
Members of the opposite sex
Bacon
Mud
Polly Shore

Not Okay at All:
Member of a questionable sex
Poutine
Fire
Carrot Top and/or Alex Trebek

[Straybow]

It's plain old lust, which Jesus said was equivalent to adultery.

Next.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's plain old lust, which Jesus said was equivalent to adultery.

Next.

So masturbation is equivalent of adultery to you? Do you tend to sing "Every Sperm is Sacred"?

[BeBMan]

Doesn't it depend whether dickgirls are involved or not?

[loinburger]

Sex with a dickgirl is not masturbation.

[Lorizael]

loin, are there science and math threads you're posting on some Sex Ed forum elsewhere on the internets?

[BeBMan]

Sex with a dickgirl is not masturbation.

Depends on the method used.

[loinburger]

loin, are there science and math threads you're posting on some Sex Ed forum elsewhere on the internets?

I copy-paste a lot of random news articles and forwarded email jokes on the tainted 48" furry diaper dickgirl fetish forum.

[Darius871]

So masturbation is equivalent of adultery to you? Do you tend to sing "Every Sperm is Sacred"?

From what I've read it's not about the waste of reproductive ability (unless one misinterprets the Onan story, which from the context was more about a duty to family than the act itself); it's entirely about the act of physically indulging in a fantasy of adultery or fornication in one's own mind, which Christ's supposed own words (leaving aside that hardass Old Testament) prohibited:

27 "You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Matthew 5:27-30

Now, reading that like a lawyer I'd say that "looks at a woman lustfully" is the key phrase, implying that, for instance, masturbating to porn or a girls' volleyball game would be a sin, whereas the mere physical act in the shower would not be a sin. But we all know that even without porn it's almost impossible to not visualize a woman being there, and is that not "look[ing] at a woman lustfully" also? That's the only gray area and I blame sh*tty draftsmanship for all the confusion.

Either way, people like Sloww who think the bible's plain text is A-OK with flipping through a Penthouse and cleaning the pipes are kidding themselves. It's not. The only real question is whether one's personal belief is that the text actually matters.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In which case, isn't also looking at, say, a babe thread the same as adultery due to that passage?

Of course we could decide not to be Biblical Fundamentalists, and IIRC, Slowwhand is very much NOT one of those.

[Darius871]

In which case, isn't also looking at, say, a babe thread the same as adultery due to that passage?

Not necessarily, because the term "lustfully" is used. It is at least theoretically possible to admire the aesthetic beauty of the female form without thinking "boy, I'd like to drill that six ways from sundown." I've never had occasion to separate the two since I don't really think about this crap, but in retrospect I guess I've never thought about schtupping the Venus De Milo or Statue of Liberty (at least until Family Guy brought it up).

If sexual thought enters into the equation, which it virtually always would in a babe thread, then yes the passage couldn't be more clear. Its plain text is so straightforward that it'd make Ginsberg look like Scalia.

Of course we could decide not to be Biblical Fundamentalists, and IIRC, Slowwhand is very much NOT one of those.

Of course, hence the "supposed" caveat as well as my "[t]he only real question is whether one's personal belief is that the text actually matters" DanS. Any non-Christian, or any half-assed Christian who feels free to discard any straightforward and unambiguous injunctions that seem inconvenient, obviously couldn't care less.

As far as I'm concerned, if I live a good life and still get turned away from the pearly gates over some lousy pearl jam, I guess them's the breaks. But that doesn't mean I'd be intellectually honest to deny that the text bans image-induced masturbation in black and white.