Sexual Immorality and pornography

[effect3d]

I was wanting to know what people believe to be a cure for masturbation
commonly seen in teens and, spreading to adults nowadays..
it is a sin of 'gratifying the desires of the flesh'
also commonly called sexual immoral

Also pornography... how do you believe people are suppose to stop this?

[d***@ntlworld.com]

Post by effect3d
I was wanting to know what people believe to be a cure for masturbation
commonly seen in teens and, spreading to adults nowadays..
it is a sin of 'gratifying the desires of the flesh'
also commonly called sexual immoral
Also pornography... how do you believe people are suppose to stop this?

Self-discipline and cold showers. I'm fortunate in that, being an
atheist, I don't need to curtail any such activities. However, the
advice was always to 'take a cold shower' and I'm sure that would
generally work.

[Jeff Caird]

Post by effect3d
I was wanting to know what people believe to be a cure for masturbation

Amputation of both hands.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by effect3d
I was wanting to know what people believe to be a cure for masturbation
commonly seen in teens and, spreading to adults nowadays..

B- It is not a disease so needs no "cure". To masturbate is to do
something very natural that helps keep the prostate in men very healthy.
If you don't masturbate ....many times during the year you will have wet
dreams. The body in men...needs to dispose of its excess semen every now
and again to be in good working order.

Post by effect3d
it is a sin of 'gratifying the desires of the flesh'
also commonly called sexual immoral

B - Says who? Did Jesus say this?

Post by effect3d
Also pornography... how do you believe people are suppose to stop this?

B - Pornography meaning? what is porn to some folks..is normal healthy
sexuality to another. To myself....beastiality and child sexual abuse and
non-consentual sex is
porn. Everything else is okay.

To want to see naked bodies and to be curious as to how others have sex is
a very innocent and normal thing. Many of us never know if what we do is
so-called "normal" and so sex tapes can help...also learning how to be a
better lover as far as technique goes can be learnt by sex tapes.
Unfortunately so can using a person as an object and disregard for what
others want can also be learnt from these tapes. Ask God to help guide you
in your choice..whether to indulge or not at all.....

We are spirits living in material bodies...sexuality being how we not only
procreate but communicate and bond with others. Know that it is a powerful
thing and to be respected as such.

These are my opinions only.
Blessings
Bren

[shegeek72]

Post by effect3d
I was wanting to know what people believe to be a cure for masturbation
commonly seen in teens and, spreading to adults nowadays..

You're not serious, are you?

Spreading to adults? Masturbation has been around as long as there have
been humans. It's a natural way of releasing sexual tension. Finding a
"cure" for masturbation is on the same level as finding a cure for sex.
Or, for than matter, a "cure" for homosexuality.

Post by effect3d
Also pornography... how do you believe people are suppose to stop this?

If you don't like it, don't look at it. The Supreme Court has held that
pornography is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Tara

[B.G. Kent]

Post by d***@ntlworld.com

Post by effect3d
I was wanting to know what people believe to be a cure for masturbation
commonly seen in teens and, spreading to adults nowadays..
it is a sin of 'gratifying the desires of the flesh'
also commonly called sexual immoral
Also pornography... how do you believe people are suppose to stop this?

Self-discipline and cold showers. I'm fortunate in that, being an
atheist, I don't need to curtail any such activities. However, the
advice was always to 'take a cold shower' and I'm sure that would
generally work.

B - To quote a film....think of this image..."Margaret Thatcher...naked in
a snow storm!"

:)

Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72

Post by effect3d
I was wanting to know what people believe to be a cure for masturbation
commonly seen in teens and, spreading to adults nowadays..

You're not serious, are you?

Yes, he is serious. And he has certainly shown more reason for him to be taken
seriously than you have.

Post by shegeek72
Spreading to adults? Masturbation has been around as long as there have
been humans.

Now what do you think this would prove? Prostitution has been around for about
as long, but only the truly deranged will argue that there is no immorality in
that.

The same is true here. Just the fact that it has been around for so long proves
NOTHING about it being moral or immoral.

Post by shegeek72
It's a natural way of releasing sexual tension.

No, it is not. You know what the natural way is. What is unnatural is that so
many who have this tension do not have a spouse (of opposite gender, mind you)
to make the natural use of that natural energy.

Post by shegeek72
Finding a
"cure" for masturbation is on the same level as finding a cure for sex.

Not at all. You are confusing the natural energy with one of the many ways of
misusing that natural energy. But this confusion _is_ the closest thing sin has
to an 'essence'.

Post by shegeek72
Or, for than matter, a "cure" for homosexuality.

That too is 'curable', but the cure is very scary. So most people try false
remedies instead, and then complain that "there is no cure".

Post by shegeek72

Post by effect3d
Also pornography... how do you believe people are suppose to stop this?

If you don't like it, don't look at it. The Supreme Court has held that
pornography is protected by the 1st Amendment.

So what? This decision is a _perfect_ example of why President Eisenhower later
said the biggest mistake he _ever_ made was appointing Burger to the Supreme
Court.

[Frederick Williams]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72

Post by effect3d
I was wanting to know what people believe to be a cure for masturbation
commonly seen in teens and, spreading to adults nowadays..

You're not serious, are you?

Yes, he is serious. And he has certainly shown more reason for him to be taken
seriously than you have.

Post by shegeek72
Spreading to adults? Masturbation has been around as long as there have
been humans.

Now what do you think this would prove? .... Just the fact that it has been around for so long proves
NOTHING about it being moral or immoral.

Indeed so, but surely the the claim that masturbation has been around as
long as there have been humans was a response to the (strange) claim
that it is spreading to adults nowadays, as if to suggest that a few
years ago adults didn't masturbate. If I'm right then shegeek72 didn't
make or intend to make a comment on the moral status of masturbation.

[d***@ntlworld.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - To quote a film....think of this image..."Margaret Thatcher...naked in
a snow storm!"
:)
Bren

If it wasn't for the snow storm I'd be getting a bit turned on now!

Dave

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <VeGqg.3641$***@trnddc03>, Matthew Johnson says...

[snip]

Post by Matthew Johnson
So what? This decision is a _perfect_ example of why President Eisenhower later
said the biggest mistake he _ever_ made was appointing Burger to the Supreme
Court.

OK, OK, it wasn't Burger, it was Warren. But the rest is still accurate.

[Frederick Williams]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
It's a natural way of releasing sexual tension.

No, it is not. You know what the natural way is.

The use of the word "natural" in this context (and probably most others)
has about as much meaning as the word "fresh" as used by supermarkets.

[Frederick Williams]

... Prostitution has been around for about
as long, but only the truly deranged will argue that there is no immorality in
that.

I wouldn't be surprised if masturbation has been around for _far_ longer
than prostitution. I don't see any immorality in prostitution and I
don't think I'm deranged or even truly deranged.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Frederick Williams

... Prostitution has been around for about
as long, but only the truly deranged will argue that there is no immorality in
that.

I wouldn't be surprised if masturbation has been around for _far_ longer
than prostitution. I don't see any immorality in prostitution and I
don't think I'm deranged or even truly deranged.

Well, I do. For this is a Christian Bible study group, and therefore in this
group, the Bible's condemnation of prostitution is normative. What are you even
_doing_ here if you don't share this view?
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

---

[I note that the charter and the tradition of the group welcomes Christians
and non-Christians, as long as they are interested in talking about
Christianity. --clh]

[Matthew Johnson]

[snip]

Post by Frederick Williams

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now what do you think this would prove? .... Just the fact that it has been
around for so long proves
NOTHING about it being moral or immoral.

Indeed so, but surely the the claim that masturbation has been around as
long as there have been humans was a response to the (strange) claim
that it is spreading to adults nowadays, as if to suggest that a few
years ago adults didn't masturbate. If I'm right then shegeek72 didn't
make or intend to make a comment on the moral status of masturbation.

Well, you are not right. It is not hard at all to look at 'shegeek's previous
posts to see that yes, 'shegeek' really _did_ intend to make a comment on the
moral status of masturbation.

Why do you insist on commenting on things you know nothing about, Frederick?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Frederick Williams

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
It's a natural way of releasing sexual tension.

No, it is not. You know what the natural way is.

The use of the word "natural" in this context (and probably most others)
has about as much meaning as the word "fresh" as used by supermarkets.

Nonsense. It has much meaning. But you are simply denying it.

[shegeek72]

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it is not. You know what the natural way is. What is unnatural is that so
many who have this tension do not have a spouse (of opposite gender, mind you)
to make the natural use of that natural energy.

And if they don't why should they deny themselves self-gratification?
Does not God want us to be happy and, if so, what possible harm can
there be to it? Objections to masturbation probably had its genesis in
a time when populations needed increasing and when sperm was thought to
contain a tiny human being and is, therefore, antiquated thinking.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
Or, for than matter, a "cure" for homosexuality.

That too is 'curable', but the cure is very scary.

Actually, it's the belief that homosexuality is wrong or "immoral"
that's scary.

Tara

[B.G. Kent]

Post by d***@ntlworld.com

Post by B.G. Kent
B - To quote a film....think of this image..."Margaret Thatcher...naked in
a snow storm!"
:)
Bren

If it wasn't for the snow storm I'd be getting a bit turned on now!
Dave

FREAK!!! hehehehe...j/k ofcourse...er...I think.

Bren

[Burkladies]

Christ does not specify sexual orientation. Jehova does that.
Matthew 15:17-20 (21st Century King James Version)
17Do ye not yet understand that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth
goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the drain?
18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from
the heart, and they defile the man.
19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20these are the things which defile a man. But to eat with unwashed
hands defileth not a man."
Blessed be, Lady

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by d***@ntlworld.com

Post by B.G. Kent
B - To quote a film....think of this image..."Margaret Thatcher...naked in
a snow storm!"

If it wasn't for the snow storm I'd be getting a bit turned on now!

FREAK!!! hehehehe...j/k ofcourse...er...I think.
Bren

[Olympiada]

Actually masturbation starts in early childhood, if allowed. The cure
is to not allow children to masturbate.
And to stop pornography, do not allow your children to look at it.
Plain and simple.

Post by effect3d
I was wanting to know what people believe to be a cure for masturbation
commonly seen in teens and, spreading to adults nowadays..
it is a sin of 'gratifying the desires of the flesh'
also commonly called sexual immoral
Also pornography... how do you believe people are suppose to stop this?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it is not. You know what the natural way is. What is unnatural
is that so many who have this tension do not have a spouse (of
opposite gender, mind you) to make the natural use of that natural
energy.

And if they don't why should they deny themselves self-gratification?

Then they are lost. For Scripture is quite clear: if any man loves his
own life (IOW: self-gratification) more than Christ, then he is
_unworthy_ of Christ (Mar 8:34-35, Mat 16:24-25).

Post by shegeek72
Does not God want us to be happy

Happy, yes. That is _why_ the Gospel warns us away from carnal
'happiness' (Mar 8:35-37, Mat 16:25). That is why the Gospel tells us
about _true_ happiness (aka. 'blessedness') in the Beatitudes:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be
comforted. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the
earth. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied. "Blessed are the merciful, for they
shall obtain mercy. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall
see God. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called
sons of God. "Blessed are those who are persecuted for
righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Mat
5:3-10 RSVA)

How very different this all is from what _you_ call 'happiness'!

But unfortunately, as long as you insist on wallowing in sin, this
true happiness is not only far from you, but you cannot even begin to
conceive what it looks like (1 Cor 2:14).

If you cannot understand this, if you do not believe it is true, then
you remain very alien to the Gospel, and have NO chance of
understanding it. For it is _crucial_ to the Gospel that we understand
that in heaven, God has prepared blessings for us greater than we can
imagine (cf. Eph 2:7, Rom 8:17-19), and that THAT is the happiness He
calls us to.

But if you remain alien to the Gospel, then you cannot even understand
yourself as you really are, since you were created in the image of
God. No wonder you made such a disastrously bad decision.

Post by shegeek72
and, if so, what possible harm can there be to it?

Quite a bit, actually. It has a frightful power to harden a man in
insensitivity, selfishness and carnality. The only reason more people
do not notice this is that they take this hardening for granted.

Post by shegeek72
Objections to masturbation probably had its genesis in a time when
populations needed increasing and when sperm was thought to contain a
tiny human being and is, therefore, antiquated thinking.

That is a popular myth. But it IS a myth. The objection has _nothing_
to do with that theory, which was Aristotelean, not even current among
the Jews when the objections were stated.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
Or, for than matter, a "cure" for homosexuality.

That too is 'curable', but the cure is very scary.

Actually, it's the belief that homosexuality is wrong or "immoral"
that's scary.

Ah, but _why_ is it 'scary' to you? I see that you have already made
it clear what the answer to _this_ question is: it is 'scary' to you
because you do not want to give up sin. Why, the evil form of
self-mutilation you chose for yourself makes that crystal clear. You
_are_ one of those who "gained for himself a 'world' of carnal
happiness, only to forfeit your own life". It is YOU He refers to in:

For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit
his life? (Mar 8:36 RSVA)

But the Gospel is crystal-clear: if you do not overcome that fear, if
you do not enroll yourself in the ranks of the soldiers of Christ who
wage unceasing spiritual warfare against sin, there is no salvation
for you.

This should have been clear from the canonical four Gospels. But just
in case it was not, Paul made it much clearer when he taught the
Gospel, saying:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of
God. (1Co 6:9-10 RSVA)

Nor did he say this just to the Corinthians: he was even _more_ clear
to the Galatians, saying:

Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity,
licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger,
selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness,
carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that
those who do such things SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
(Gal 5:19-21 RSVA)

Yet you willfully deceive yourself and as many others as you can drag
down with yourself. Your posts are _clearly_ "works of the flesh". No
doubt much of your life is.

[shegeek72]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Then they are lost. For Scripture is quite clear: if any man loves his
own life (IOW: self-gratification) more than Christ, then he is
_unworthy_ of Christ (Mar 8:34-35, Mat 16:24-25).

We must be reading two different Bibles as in Mark 8:34-35 (KJV) Jesus
talks about eschewing worldly life and following him and in Matthew
16:24-25 Jesus talks about seven brothers who die and marry the same
woman and Jesus is asked who in resurrection of which seven will be his
wife. Jesus answers in resurrection there is no marriage as they are
like angels in heaven. There is_nothing_about self-gratification in
either. You are reading things into it.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Happy, yes. That is _why_ the Gospel warns us away from carnal
'happiness' (Mar 8:35-37, Mat 16:25). That is why the Gospel tells us

[snip!]

Again, nothing about masturbation.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But unfortunately, as long as you insist on wallowing in sin, this
true happiness is not only far from you, but you cannot even begin to
conceive what it looks like (1 Cor 2:14).

That section concerns the unspiritual and spiritual person. I do not
believe only Chrstians can be spiritual. Indeed, I've met very few
Christians who are spiritual.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Quite a bit, actually. It has a frightful power to harden a man in
insensitivity, selfishness and carnality.

Bunk. Masturbation can relieve sexual tension, like sexual intercourse,
which relaxes the person and allows him or her to get on with
day-to-day activities. It's a natural part of human and animal
sexuality.

Post by Matthew Johnson
That is a popular myth. But it IS a myth.

In your opinion. There is mythology in the Bible, i.e. Genesis.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Ah, but _why_ is it 'scary' to you?

It's scary because it leads to homophobia, gay bashings and murder.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Yet you willfully deceive yourself and as many others as you can drag
down with yourself.

Actually, I deceived myself when I was the other gender and have no
desire or need to "drag others down." I offer valuable information on
my website and have received dozens of emails and comments thanking me
for it.

Tara

[B.G. Kent]

To not allow your child to masturbate is very cruel.

It is normal and healthy and allows a connection to your body that
allows you to know what feels good sexually so that later in life you
can understand sexuality better.


I.M.O

Why are so many people on this newsgroup anti-sex?

Bren


On Mon, 10 Jul 2006,

Post by Olympiada
Actually masturbation starts in early childhood, if allowed. The cure
is to not allow children to masturbate.

k

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Burkladies
Christ does not specify sexual orientation. Jehova does that.

B - and as I am a Christian I listen to Christ.

:)
Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
Then they are lost. For Scripture is quite clear: if any man loves
his own life (IOW: self-gratification) more than Christ, then he is
_unworthy_ of Christ (Mar 8:34-35, Mat 16:24-25).

We must be reading two different Bibles as in Mark 8:34-35 (KJV)

No, we are not. You _are_ advocating a very worldly life
(self-gratification). Christ in Mk 8:34-35 is warning people away from
the same wordly life you preach.

Post by shegeek72
Jesus talks about eschewing worldly life and following him and in
Matthew 16:24-25

And again: He is warning people away from the same wordly life you
preach.

Post by shegeek72
Jesus talks about seven brothers who die and marry the same woman and
Jesus is asked who in resurrection of which seven will be his
wife.

What are you talking about? That is in _completely_ different passage,
and ONLY there! The parable of the seven brothers is only in (Mat
22:25, Mar 12:20 and Luk 20:29.

Not ONE of these passages is even in the same context as Mar 8:34-35
or Mat 16:24-25). You have no clue what you are talking about.

Post by shegeek72
Jesus answers in resurrection there is no marriage as they are like
angels in heaven. There is_nothing_about self-gratification in
either. You are reading things into it.

No, you have just demonstrated that you do not even know how to
read. You have got _entirely_ the wrong passage. And you didn't even
interpret _that_ right!

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
Happy, yes. That is _why_ the Gospel warns us away from carnal
'happiness' (Mar 8:35-37, Mat 16:25). That is why the Gospel tells

[snip!]

You made a rash claim about happiness, and when confronted with what
the Gospel _really_ says about happiness, all you could do is snip?

You cannot hide from the truth so easily. What I said then is just as
true now: the notion of 'happiness' Christ describes in the Beatitudes
is COMPLETELY different from the false, temporal 'happiness' you
propose.

You may as well have shouted, "I give up"!

Post by shegeek72
Again, nothing about masturbation.

Sure, there is. Anyone who know how to practice hermeneutics will see
the connection. But since you know nothing about this, you miss it;
the 'happiness' you propose by means of this evil practice is
COMPLETLY CONTRARY to the Gospel notion of happiness.

What is more, I already explained what the connection is. But because
you are so dishonest, rather than address the explanation, you have
pretended that there is none, and that I stated none. But both are
obviously false.

Is this a typical sample of your 'happiness'? A 'happiness' that can
only be sustained by such dishonesty?

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
But unfortunately, as long as you insist on wallowing in sin, this
true happiness is not only far from you, but you cannot even begin
to conceive what it looks like (1 Cor 2:14).

That section concerns the unspiritual and spiritual person.

No, it concerns the "spiritual person" and the "psychological person".

Post by shegeek72
I do not believe only Chrstians can be spiritual.

Well, so what? The kind of "spiritual person" _Paul_ is talking about
has a spirituality that can ONLY be practiced by a Christian. Your
belief is quite irrelevant here.

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, I've met very few Christians who are spiritual.

That could be true, but it would still have no relevance here, except
perhaps for an ad hominem argument.

Then again, you have already shown quite a penchant not only for crude
ad hominem, but also for hypocritically accusing others of the ad
hominem you yourself commit.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
Quite a bit, actually. It has a frightful power to harden a man in
insensitivity, selfishness and carnality.

Bunk.

No, it is not 'bunk'. You demonstrate that hardness yourself even with
your answer of 'bunk'. Why, by resorting to such a mockery of
rebuttal, you actually help me make my case.

Post by shegeek72
Masturbation can relieve sexual tension, like sexual intercourse,
which relaxes the person and allows him or her to get on with
day-to-day activities. It's a natural part of human and animal
sexuality.

Statutory rape can relieve it too. But I don't see you recommending
that. Why not?

For that matter, your proposal is like saying "hitting your brother
relieves the pent up anger, so it relaxes you, and so is a natural
part of human life".

Just as with relieving pent up anger, not every method of 'relief' is
acceptable, so also with this tension: not every 'relief" is
acceptable.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
That is a popular myth. But it IS a myth.

In your opinion. There is mythology in the Bible, i.e. Genesis.

The issue of whether or not there is mythology in the Bible is
COMPLETELY irrelevant. It is YOUR belief that is a myth. And you could
not refute this.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
Ah, but _why_ is it 'scary' to you?

It's scary because it leads to homophobia, gay bashings and murder.

Why are you scared of the small harm, but you embrace the far greater
harm? Being murdered is a far smaller harm than the harm you threaten
people with. That is WHY Christ said:

he who wishes to save his life shall LOSE it (Mat 16:25).

You have already lost yours, and are desperately tyring to fool others
into following your own evil example.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
Yet you willfully deceive yourself and as many others as you can
drag down with yourself.

Actually, I deceived myself when I was the other gender

No, you deceive yourself now, since you pretend you are no longer
male, though all you can change is your external appearance. You have
not banished your X chromosome. You have only suppressed its
expression by VERY unnatural means.

Post by shegeek72
and have no desire or need to "drag others down."

Then why do you continue to do it?

Post by shegeek72
I offer valuable information on my website

No, NONE of that disinformation is 'valuable'.

Post by shegeek72
and have received dozens of emails and comments thanking me for it.

Well, so what if they thanked you for it? You remind me of the
junk-food salesman who use to sell crunchy candy bars with bone chips
in them. When people accused him for this, his answer was, "kids
_like_ it". It was in response to such dishonesty that the FDA
acquired the right to regulate foods for sale.

Just as it was dishonest for him to sell such harmful 'candy', so it
is dishonest for you to offer your "valuable information". But at
least the salesman only threatened their bodies; you threaten their
souls with damnation (1 Cor 6:9-10).

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent
To not allow your child to masturbate is very cruel.

No, it is not. On the contrary: to allow him to fall into the habit, not knowing
what a trap it is, that is what is cruel. But this cruelty is so common
nowadays, many of us do not even know people who have avoided the trap. But I
do. And they are like prophetic fulfillments of St. Basils the Great's comment
that the beauty of the chaste women among Christians is far more excellent than
the beauty of the laviscious among the pagans.

Post by B.G. Kent
It is normal and healthy

So you love to repeat. But anyone with even the least modicum of respect for the
Christian Tradition will not be so quick to agree. They will prefer the beauty
of the chaste, just as St. Basil says.

Post by B.G. Kent
and allows a connection to your body that
allows you to know what feels good sexually

No, it is a 'connection' that _fools_ the victim into believing he is "connected
to his body"; but what really happens is the victim's soul becomes slave to his
body, instead of servant to his spirit, hastening the decay into spiritual
death.

Post by B.G. Kent
so that later in life you
can understand sexuality better.

No, it does not do this either. It only hastens the understanding of the depths
of depravity. But this is not the same thing at all. YOU might think so, but
that could be only because you are already a slave to depravity.

Post by B.G. Kent
Why are so many people on this newsgroup anti-sex?

That is a dishonest leading question. They are not. They are against the ABUSE
of sex. But since you are blinded by your passions, the only use you _can_
imagine for it IS abuse.

[shegeek72]

Post by Matthew Johnson
And again: He is warning people away from the same wordly life you
preach.

Again, nothing there about masturbation.

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, you have just demonstrated that you do not even know how to
read. You have got _entirely_ the wrong passage. And you didn't even
interpret _that_ right!

Of course, you have the only interpertation that's right.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You made a rash claim about happiness, and when confronted with what
the Gospel _really_ says about happiness, all you could do is snip?

I snipped because there was nothing about the subject at hand:
masturbation.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
Again, nothing about masturbation.

Sure, there is. Anyone who know how to practice hermeneutics will see
the connection.

Again, you know the only 'right' interpretation. How convenient.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
That section concerns the unspiritual and spiritual person.

No, it concerns the "spiritual person" and the "psychological person".

In your opinion.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, I've met very few Christians who are spiritual.

That could be true, but it would still have no relevance here, except
perhaps for an ad hominem argument.

The observation I made certainly is not an ad hominim argument.

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it is not 'bunk'. You demonstrate that hardness yourself even with
your answer of 'bunk'.

Hardness? LOL! I'm just a softy. :)

Post by Matthew Johnson
Statutory rape can relieve it too. But I don't see you recommending
that. Why not?

Poor analogy. Rape is not the same as masturbation.

Post by Matthew Johnson
For that matter, your proposal is like saying "hitting your brother
relieves the pent up anger, so it relaxes you, and so is a natural
part of human life".

Another poor analogy. Is this the best you can do?

Post by Matthew Johnson
The issue of whether or not there is mythology in the Bible is
COMPLETELY irrelevant. It is YOUR belief that is a myth. And you could
not refute this.

Likewise, you cannot refute that there's no mythology in the Bible.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Why are you scared of the small harm, but you embrace the far greater
harm? Being murdered is a far smaller harm than the harm you threaten
people with.

So my injury, or death, at the hands of transphobic people is "small
harm?" Who's the one who has hardness here?

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, you deceive yourself now, since you pretend you are no longer
male, though all you can change is your external appearance. You have
not banished your X chromosome. You have only suppressed its
expression by VERY unnatural means.

Actually, that should be my Y chromosome that should be banished. :)

We've already been around this block. You don't know my chromosomal
configuration. Many transgender people have unusual chromosomal
combinations. For example, well-known trans woman Carolyn Cossey is
XXX. Is she male or female?

Also, there are babies born a phenotype male with XX genes (and
vice-versa). Is this baby male or female. Nature doesn't always produce
strickly male or female people. In addition, the latest evidence
indicates we (MTFs) are born with female brains (there are significant
structural differences between the male and female brains) and males
brains for the FTM.

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, NONE of that disinformation is 'valuable'.

Try reading my accolades page:
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem/accolades.htm. But I suppose you think
all those people are "dragged down" also.

Uh huh ... sure. And tell me when Elvis gets here. :P

Tara

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
And again: He is warning people away from the same wordly life you
preach.

Again, nothing there about masturbation.

You do not know how to READ. Why, you don't even remember the context
set by your own comment. You claimed that they could only be happy if
they committed this sin, I showed you what happiness _really_ looks
like. It has _nothing_ to do with committing this sin.

If that connection really is too hard for you to see, then posting in
this NG is not the only thing you should give up.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, you have just demonstrated that you do not even know how to
read. You have got _entirely_ the wrong passage. And you didn't even
interpret _that_ right!

Of course, you have the only interpertation that's right.

That is a truly childish rejoinder. It is no rebuttal at all.

Drop the childishness and admit your mistake.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
You made a rash claim about happiness, and when confronted with what
the Gospel _really_ says about happiness, all you could do is snip?

masturbation.

And you were wrong about that. I wish I could say I was surprised.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
Again, nothing about masturbation.

Sure, there is. Anyone who know how to practice hermeneutics will see
the connection.

Again, you know the only 'right' interpretation. How convenient.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
That section concerns the unspiritual and spiritual person.

No, it concerns the "spiritual person" and the "psychological person".

In your opinion.

Not just my opinion. Besides: my opinion carries much more weight than
yours. For you have shown _clearly_ and to the _entire_ NG, that you
don't know even the first things about exegesis and hermeneutics. An
awful lot of people in this NG know much more than you about both. It
isn't just me.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, I've met very few Christians who are spiritual.

That could be true, but it would still have no relevance here, except
perhaps for an ad hominem argument.

The observation I made certainly is not an ad hominim argument.

No, it certainly is. It is the form of ad hominem sometimes called "tu
quoque".

So by now it is clear that not only do you know nothing about
Scripture, not only do you know nothing about Christianity, you don't
even know the most elementary things about truthful debate.

How much further will you go in showing off your own ignorance and
obstinacy?

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it is not 'bunk'. You demonstrate that hardness yourself even with
your answer of 'bunk'.

Hardness? LOL! I'm just a softy. :)

Post by Matthew Johnson
Statutory rape can relieve it too. But I don't see you recommending
that. Why not?

Poor analogy. Rape is not the same as masturbation.

That is another non-sequitur. Of _course_ they are not the same. Two
elements of an analogy _never_ are the same; otherwise, it would be an
equation, not an anology.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
For that matter, your proposal is like saying "hitting your brother
relieves the pent up anger, so it relaxes you, and so is a natural
part of human life".

Another poor analogy.

So says the person who doesn't know the difference between an analogy
and an equation. You have no credibility here -- or anywhere else in
this NG, either.

Post by shegeek72
Is this the best you can do?

I have only begun...

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
The issue of whether or not there is mythology in the Bible is
COMPLETELY irrelevant. It is YOUR belief that is a myth. And you could
not refute this.

Likewise, you cannot refute that there's no mythology in the Bible.

But I don't have to. This is another of your irrelevant distractions.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
Why are you scared of the small harm, but you embrace the far
greater harm? Being murdered is a far smaller harm than the harm
you threaten people with.

So my injury, or death, at the hands of transphobic people is "small
harm?"

Compared to the harm you inflict on yourself by your impenitence,
YES. That is why Christ says:

(Mat 5:30 RSVA) 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.

Post by shegeek72
Who's the one who has hardness here?

You, of course.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, you deceive yourself now, since you pretend you are no longer
male, though all you can change is your external appearance. You have
not banished your X chromosome. You have only suppressed its
expression by VERY unnatural means.

Actually, that should be my Y chromosome that should be banished. :)
We've already been around this block. You don't know my chromosomal
configuration.

This is an example of the fallacy called "moving the goalpost". I do
not _have_ to know your "chromosomal configuration". I already know
that it is not female. You admitted as much on your website, if not in
so many words.

Post by shegeek72
Many transgender people have unusual chromosomal
combinations. For example, well-known trans woman Carolyn Cossey is
XXX. Is she male or female?

This is an example of another fallacy, this time, 'irrelevant
distraction'.

[more irrelevant distraction snipped]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, NONE of that disinformation is 'valuable'.

http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem/accolades.htm. But I suppose you think
all those people are "dragged down" also.

Yes.

Post by shegeek72
Uh huh ... sure. And tell me when Elvis gets here. :P

This childish scoffing of yours only shows how stubbornly impenitent
you really are. For this is _exactly_ the scoffing condemned by the
wise Solomon in the words:

(Pro 24:9 JPS) The thought of foolishness is sin; and the scorner
is an abomination to men.

Yes, that is a pretty good description of what you have made yourself
into.

[Jani]

[]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
Why are you scared of the small harm, but you embrace the far greater
harm? Being murdered is a far smaller harm than the harm you threaten
people with.

So my injury, or death, at the hands of transphobic people is "small
harm?" Who's the one who has hardness here?

I think Matthew is saying that your physical death would be justified, if it
meant that you were no longer allowed to perpetrate what he considers as
spiritual harm by advocating acceptance of gay and/or trans people as
Christians.

If I've misinterpreted what he said, I would appreciate clarification from
him.

Jani

[Jani]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by B.G. Kent
To not allow your child to masturbate is very cruel.

No, it is not. On the contrary: to allow him to fall into the habit, not
knowing
what a trap it is, that is what is cruel.

Not sure how a parent would "not allow" a child to masturbate in the first
place, given that it's a private sort of activity. If we're talking about
young teenagers here, I'd be a lot more worried about the parent who
constantly follows a 12-year-old into the bathroom or the bedroom, than I
would be about what the child's doing when they get in there.



But this cruelty is so common

Post by Matthew Johnson
nowadays, many of us do not even know people who have avoided the trap.
But I
do. And they are like prophetic fulfillments of St. Basils the Great's
comment
that the beauty of the chaste women among Christians is far more excellent
than
the beauty of the laviscious among the pagans.

And did they avoid this "trap" because they made a conscious, rational
decision to do so, or because they were hounded into it by over-zealous
parents? Don't forget, some Christians believe their daughters' "chastity"
is best achieved by genital mutilation, and some Pagans set a high personal
value on sexual abstinence.


[]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by B.G. Kent
and allows a connection to your body that
allows you to know what feels good sexually

No, it is a 'connection' that _fools_ the victim into believing he is
"connected
to his body"; but what really happens is the victim's soul becomes slave
to his
body, instead of servant to his spirit, hastening the decay into spiritual
death.

There *is* a middle ground between self-mortification and over-indulgence,
you know.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by B.G. Kent
so that later in life you
can understand sexuality better.

No, it does not do this either. It only hastens the understanding of the
depths
of depravity. But this is not the same thing at all. YOU might think so,
but
that could be only because you are already a slave to depravity.

I suppose if masturbation was always accompanied by surfing the less savoury
elements of the sex industry, as portrayed on the Web, then it might
"hasten" such understanding. But since it isn't, it doesn't.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by B.G. Kent
Why are so many people on this newsgroup anti-sex?

That is a dishonest leading question. They are not. They are against the
ABUSE
of sex. But since you are blinded by your passions, the only use you _can_
imagine for it IS abuse.

People can be just as blinded by an idealistic worship of asceticism, as
well. What's wrong with moderation, and putting sex where it belongs - a
*part* of human activity, not something to get obsessed over from either
side of the equation?

Jani

[shegeek72]

Post by Jani
I think Matthew is saying that your physical death would be justified, if it
meant that you were no longer allowed to perpetrate what he considers as
spiritual harm by advocating acceptance of gay and/or trans people as
Christians.

It's precisely this type of belief that's led to Christians murdering
and burning people and continues to reinforce homophobic / transphobic
behavior today.

Tara

[shegeek72]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
We've already been around this block. You don't know my chromosomal
configuration.

This is an example of the fallacy called "moving the goalpost". I do
not _have_ to know your "chromosomal configuration". I already know
that it is not female.

No, you do not. It could well be XX or XXX, or some other combination.
Unless I have a gene test NO ONE can say for certianty that I'm XY.
However, even if this were the case it doesn't negate the lastest
evidence, and the conclusions of advanced degreed professionals, that
we are born with female brains, and vice-versa for the FTM.

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is an example of another fallacy, this time, 'irrelevant
distraction'.

Fallacy? Hardly. Try doing some real research into transgender instead
of_acting_like a know-it-all and relying on centuries old texts.

Tara

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by B.G. Kent
To not allow your child to masturbate is very cruel.

No, it is not. On the contrary: to allow him to fall into the habit, not
knowing
what a trap it is, that is what is cruel.

Not sure how a parent would "not allow" a child to masturbate in the first
place, given that it's a private sort of activity.

Now sure how you would know anything, since you did not even read the WHOLE
SENTENCE. I did not say "not allow", I said "allow, not knowing waht a trap it
is". Back in the days when people actually did real parenting, they warned their
children away from such things, WITHOUT the abuse of privacy you are so
concerned about.

In the end, we have no choice: we have to leave it up to our children to choose
responsibly. But if we give them the fatherly guidance they need, they often
surprise us by doing this so well.

[snip]

Post by Jani
People can be just as blinded by an idealistic worship of asceticism, as
well.

This is extremely rare these days. The opposite problem, total neglect of
asceticism, rules modern day society.

Post by Jani
What's wrong with moderation, and putting sex where it belongs - a
*part* of human activity, not something to get obsessed over from either
side of the equation?

What did you _think_ I was after? You haven't achieved this moderation yet,
judging from your post.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Jani
[]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
Why are you scared of the small harm, but you embrace the far greater
harm? Being murdered is a far smaller harm than the harm you threaten
people with.

So my injury, or death, at the hands of transphobic people is "small
harm?" Who's the one who has hardness here?

I think Matthew is saying that your physical death would be justified, if it
meant that you were no longer allowed to perpetrate what he considers as
spiritual harm by advocating acceptance of gay and/or trans people as
Christians.
If I've misinterpreted what he said, I would appreciate clarification from
him.

You did misinterpret it, just as you misinterpreted my other post in
this same thread. You are 0 for 2!

What part of "far smaller harm" did you not understand? And how did
you miss the referenced to Mat 5:30? Surely the relevance is not that
hard to understand.

My point is that the self-inflicted spiritual harm is much worse than
the harm of even something as horrible as murder. I do _not_ justify
murder by any means.

Of course, if I hadn't been in such a hurry, I would have also thought
to refer to:

but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to
sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened
round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Mat
18:6 RSVA)

So yes, it would be better for 'shegeek' to be drowned in the depth of
the sea than to continue in the depravity 'shegeek' insists on.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
That section concerns the unspiritual and spiritual person.

No, it concerns the "spiritual person" and the "psychological person".

In your opinion.

Not just my opinion. Besides: my opinion carries much more weight than
yours. For you have shown _clearly_ and to the _entire_ NG, that you
don't know even the first things about exegesis and hermeneutics. An
awful lot of people in this NG know much more than you about both. It
isn't just me.

Well, I'm not agreeing with the position of the debater, but as I've
already noted, "psychological" person is not the best exegesis nor the
best linguistic analysis of the Greek.

Matthew's hermeneutic *is* relativistic in that it enjoins
allegorizism. It's applicaion is one of "opinion," when to allegorize
and when not to. That is why it is relativistic. The literal
interpretation was Christ's hermeneutic, it was the hermeneutic of the
prophets, the disciples and the writers of the NT. It is the
*normative* reading of the word. That the books were always written in
the common tongue of the people, (look at Daniel) they were always
intented to be read normatively.

Again, the contrast is between the regenerate and non-regenerate
person which, as taught throughout the scriptures, views all men
depraved and in need of not only the calling, but the drawing and
choosing of God. The "spiritual" man stands apart from the "natural"
man in that He has the indwelling Spirit. That is the whole point of
the context. Duh!

As for masturbation,

Eph. 5:5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure
person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the
kingdom of Christ and God.

Gal. 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are:
immorality, impurity, sensuality,

2 Pet. 2:18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by
fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones
who live in error,

As was specifically debated under the "masturbation" thread just a
while back, it was concluded that masturbation nearly always involves
lust. Certainly then it is entirely within the scope of "fleshly
desires" and "sensuality," especially when you look at the etymology
of the words.

Basically, the scriptures teach that ALL sex outside of the confines
of marriage is outside of the will of God. Such a teaching finds
presuppositional basis in nothing less than the relationship within
the Godhead. The reason that divorce is outside of God's will is
because it is atypical of God Himself. One member of the Godhead never
seeks freedom from the others. It is a perfect union. Likewise,
masturbation along with fornication (sex outside of marriage) is
unacceptable because "self" is the focal point of the inclination.
This squarely drops such actions entirely within the scope of the
"flesh."

No one is here denying that masturbation is not enjoyable. That is not
the point, however. The only reference point for any ethos has to be
the nature or God. Anything contrary to the nature of God is rebellion
based in idolatry. Idolatry is simply thinking of God other than He
is. And it is only by His special revelation as given to us in the
Scriptures that we can know Him and His will.

I feel it is dishonest to bring in talk of "pleasure" when speaking as
to the morality of masturbation. "Pleasure" is entirely beside the
issue and outside of the scope of discussion. Any introductory class
in ethics would at once rid the student of any such misunderstanding.

And beyond this, pleasure is presumed to be equivalent to or the cause
of satisfaction. This too stands outside of biblical Christianity.
Today, for instance, people believe that money is the key to pleasure
and that pleasure is the key to happiness and that happiness is the
key to satisfaction. But experience surely discounts this. It is a
well recognized fact that next to teenagers, millionaires have the
highest incidents of suicide as a group. Materialism alway
marginalizes worship. But the point being made is that one can never
base any ethic on self, rather, only in the character/nature of God.

So after all this, I would just ask the debater but one rudimentary
set of questions. Would you go so far in your defense as to propose
that God masturbates? Is it even in His nature to masturbate? Does
masturbation ever itself apart from the flesh? Can it? God is the
standard. If you cannot fine a basis for your ethic within the
Godhead, then it necessarily stands outside of His will.

[h***@rutgers.edu]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
So after all this, I would just ask the debater but one rudimentary
set of questions. Would you go so far in your defense as to propose
that God masturbates? Is it even in His nature to masturbate? Does
masturbation ever itself apart from the flesh? Can it? God is the
standard. If you cannot fine a basis for your ethic within the
Godhead, then it necessarily stands outside of His will.

God also doesn't engage in heterosexual intercourse, nor does he
eat or breathe. I think you want a different criterion here.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by h***@rutgers.edu

Post by l***@hotmail.com
So after all this, I would just ask the debater but one rudimentary
set of questions. Would you go so far in your defense as to propose
that God masturbates? Is it even in His nature to masturbate? Does
masturbation ever itself apart from the flesh? Can it? God is the
standard. If you cannot fine a basis for your ethic within the
Godhead, then it necessarily stands outside of His will.

God also doesn't engage in heterosexual intercourse, nor does he
eat or breathe. I think you want a different criterion here.

I had the inkling that I should make some notation in regards to
anthropological symbolism but thought it to be understood. Obviously
the question as to God masturbating has to have significance apart
from the physical limitations of our definition. It is applicable,
however,
when we place it in the confines of "self" orientation. In that the
Trinity is always mutually serving, the inclination to self in
disregard
to the other members of the Godhead is outside of God's being.

There is hardly a better discussion of this than EdwinYamauchi's,
"Anthropomorphism in Ancient Religions" which I believe I have
posted before. He discusses not only anthropomorphisms but
also theriomorphisms.

Certainly God does not eat or breath however, ALL revelation from
God, either general or special, is anthropomorphic. There are no
secondary avenues available. This is part of reasoning, the
requirement
of the Incarnation.

[Jeff Caird]

On 2006-07-17, ***@hotmail.com <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As for masturbation,

[...]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Basically, the scriptures teach that ALL sex outside of the confines
of marriage is outside of the will of God.

MASTURBATION IS NOT SEX!!! When will you people get that
through your thick skulls?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
That section concerns the unspiritual and spiritual person.

No, it concerns the "spiritual person" and the "psychological person".

In your opinion.

Not just my opinion. Besides: my opinion carries much more weight
than yours. For you have shown _clearly_ and to the _entire_ NG,
that you don't know even the first things about exegesis and
hermeneutics. An awful lot of people in this NG know much more than
you about both. It isn't just me.

Well, I'm not agreeing with the position of the debater,

That is good news.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
but as I've already noted, "psychological" person is not the best
exegesis nor the best linguistic analysis of the Greek.

And you were wrong the previous time you 'noted' that. You should have
noticed this when I pointed out your sources rely on _Gnostic_
exegesis. You should also have noticed when I pointed out how rashly
they contradict the Fathers, who knew their own Greek language so
well.

But as it is, you have noticed neither. That is why your 'exegesis' is
hardly any better than "shegeek's".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Matthew's hermeneutic *is* relativistic in that it enjoins
allegorizism.

This is ridiculous. Relativism and "allegorism" are _completely_
independent of one another. That is, one can endorse either one
without endorsing the other.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It's applicaion is one of "opinion," when to allegorize and when not
to. That is why it is relativistic.

No, that does not make it 'relativistic'.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The literal interpretation was Christ's hermeneutic,

No, it was not. What was "literal" about comparing Himself to Jona?
That was _clear_ allegory. So was Paul's use of Sarah and Hagar.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
it was the hermeneutic of
the prophets, the disciples and the writers of the NT.

Wrong again. See above.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is the
*normative* reading of the word.

No, it was not. You accompish nothing by repeating such false
assertions. Unless, of course, you are trying to prove your own
ignorance.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
That the books were always written in the common tongue of the
people, (look at Daniel) they were always intented to be read
normatively.

This is not even a sentence.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, the contrast is between the regenerate and non-regenerate
person which,

No, that is not "the contrast". On the contrary: the only contrast you
are showing us here is the contrast between one who sticks to the
topic of the thread arguing coherently, and one who does neither.

[snip]

[Jani]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by B.G. Kent
To not allow your child to masturbate is very cruel.

No, it is not. On the contrary: to allow him to fall into the habit, not
knowing
what a trap it is, that is what is cruel.

Not sure how a parent would "not allow" a child to masturbate in the first
place, given that it's a private sort of activity.

Now sure how you would know anything, since you did not even read the
WHOLE
SENTENCE. I did not say "not allow", I said "allow, not knowing waht a
trap it
is".

Yes, but the OP said "to not allow your child to masturbate is very cruel",
and you replied, "no, it is not". That's the point I was addressing - cruel
or not, how would a parent "allow" or "not allow", in the first place?

Back in the days when people actually did real parenting, they warned their

Post by Matthew Johnson
children away from such things, WITHOUT the abuse of privacy you are so
concerned about.

Warning against excess and obsession - about anything, not just sex - is
fine, and "real parenting" still goes on, as far as that's concerned. But
some of the extreme measures taken to physically prevent children from
masturbating, which certainly happened in the past and may well still go on
today - that's not "warning", that's abuse. And it is not "real parenting".

Post by Matthew Johnson
In the end, we have no choice: we have to leave it up to our children to
choose
responsibly. But if we give them the fatherly guidance they need, they
often
surprise us by doing this so well.

Or motherly guidance :) But, yes, I agree with you there - much as a
parent's natural instinct is to shield the child from all harm, that's only
appropriate when they're very small. After that, it's an ongoing process of
teaching them to make rational, responsible decisions *for themselves*.

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Jani
People can be just as blinded by an idealistic worship of asceticism, as
well.

This is extremely rare these days. The opposite problem, total neglect of
asceticism, rules modern day society.

Hmm. I think *genuine* asceticism is probably rare, but there's a distorted,
puritanical version of it which seems to be remarkably prevalent, at least
in the US.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani
What's wrong with moderation, and putting sex where it belongs - a
*part* of human activity, not something to get obsessed over from either
side of the equation?

What did you _think_ I was after? You haven't achieved this moderation
yet,
judging from your post.

Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. I'm just shaking my head in
bemusement at the incredible fuss and palaver people make about sex. It's a
powerful urge, sure, but so's hunger. Both can be controlled, and an
obsession with food is just as unbalanced and unhealthy as an obsession with
sex.

Jani

[Jani]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Jani
I think Matthew is saying that your physical death would be justified, if
it
meant that you were no longer allowed to perpetrate what he considers as
spiritual harm by advocating acceptance of gay and/or trans people as
Christians.

It's precisely this type of belief that's led to Christians murdering
and burning people and continues to reinforce homophobic / transphobic
behavior today.

Well, as I'm trying to establish elsethread, there's a difference between
saying "I believe you're endangering your immortal soul by your
beliefs/behaviour" and saying "I believe you cause spiritual harm to others
by your beliefs/behaviour and therefore your death, although a harm in
itself, is a lesser harm than allowing you to continue".

The latter is a *very* slippery slope.

Jani

[Jani]

[]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani
I think Matthew is saying that your physical death would be justified, if
it
meant that you were no longer allowed to perpetrate what he considers as
spiritual harm by advocating acceptance of gay and/or trans people as
Christians.
If I've misinterpreted what he said, I would appreciate clarification from
him.

You did misinterpret it, just as you misinterpreted my other post in
this same thread. You are 0 for 2!

OK. Let's have a look at your clarification, then ...

Post by Matthew Johnson
What part of "far smaller harm" did you not understand? And how did
you miss the referenced to Mat 5:30? Surely the relevance is not that
hard to understand.
My point is that the self-inflicted spiritual harm is much worse than
the harm of even something as horrible as murder. I do _not_ justify
murder by any means.

Ah. Now, originally you said "being murdered is a far smaller harm than the
harm you threaten people with". So, as I understood it, you weren't
referring to spiritual harm shegeek might be doing to herself, but to other
people. That, to me, indicates that you feel the "smaller harm" of shegeek
being murdered is preferable to the "greater harm" she does to
society-as-a-whole, by saying that gay and/or TG people should be accepted.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Of course, if I hadn't been in such a hurry, I would have also thought
but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to
sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened
round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Mat
18:6 RSVA)
So yes, it would be better for 'shegeek' to be drowned in the depth of
the sea than to continue in the depravity 'shegeek' insists on.
From the perspective of shegeek's own spiritual well-being, though, or that

of the population at large?

Jani

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Jani
I think Matthew is saying that your physical death would be justified, if it
meant that you were no longer allowed to perpetrate what he considers as
spiritual harm by advocating acceptance of gay and/or trans people as
Christians.

It's precisely this type of belief that's led to Christians murdering
and burning people and continues to reinforce homophobic / transphobic
behavior today.

Not at all. Rather, it is the disgusting audacity in evil-doing of people like
you that reinforces "homphopic/transphobic behavior".

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jeff Caird
MASTURBATION IS NOT SEX!!! When will you people get that
through your thick skulls?

Just a quick thought. If we assume that you are correct in your
conclusion, then if two unmarried people masturbated either in
front of one another or masturbated each other, then that would
not constitute fornication or adultery? Come on!

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jeff Caird
MASTURBATION IS NOT SEX!!! When will you people get that
through your thick skulls?

Then what is it? As I wrote in my original post, it, at the very
least,
does fall into the "sensuality" and "fleshy" aspects of scriptural
admonition. It is certainly _self_ishly oriented. I can and do pray
to God as my wife and I enjoy one another. However, I don't think
anyone of a sound spiritual mentality can say such a thing while
masturbating. It really isn't an action worthy of either prayer of
worship. If not, then one must consider what options are then
left. So my question remains -what is it if it is not sexual?

[shegeek72]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Not at all. Rather, it is the disgusting audacity in evil-doing of people like
you that reinforces "homphopic/transphobic behavior".

Great logic: Forget homelessness, forget hunger, forget rampant sexual
abuse by the clergy, but rather focus on minute portions of the
population, i.e. 2% to 4% for gays / lesbians and around 1% for
transsexuals. Do we stick our noses into your lives and castigate
Christians and call you "evil?"

We are people born with a biological condition that, looking at the
evidence, happens prenatally and is most likely due to a mix-up in
hormone balance during critical periods of the fetus' development.
There is nothing inherently harmful in being born transsexual, just as
there's nothing inhrently harmful being born inter-sexed (which happens
in 1 in 2000 births).

Also, you've ignored the genetic evidence of some babies being born a
phenotype male, but with XX genes and vice-versa, as well as other
combinations such as XXY, XXX, etc. Nature doesn't produce human sex in
neat, little boxes of strictly male and female -- there are variations.

GID is a recognized medical condition that's treated by board-certified
plastic surgeons and Masters-level and advanced-degreed health
professionals. Transgender has existed in every culture since the dawn
of humans and were revered in some cultures. For example, the Iroquois
Indians revered the transgender, or third-sex, as a Shawoman /
mediator.

We have no desire to "drag people down." Indeed, there are stingent
requirements that must be met before a transsexual can be approved for
hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery (SRS), to weed out those
who aren't true transsexuals.

It's time to put away your prejudices and condemnation and concentrate
on more important issues than harass and ostracize a tiny portion of
the population.

Tara

[Jeff Caird]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jeff Caird
MASTURBATION IS NOT SEX!!! When will you people get that
through your thick skulls?

Just a quick thought. If we assume that you are correct in your
conclusion, then if two unmarried people masturbated either in
front of one another or masturbated each other, then that would
not constitute fornication or adultery? Come on!

Those two people having come together for the purpose you set
out have already committed adultery through their intent to do
so. Also, what you have described would certainly be classed
as foreplay, the prelude to and a virtual part of the sex act
itself. So it's one or the other.

What you have described is not a solitary act, expeditiously
performed and without the aid of pornography. You see, it
takes on the immoral nature of the circumstances.

[Jeff Caird]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jeff Caird
MASTURBATION IS NOT SEX!!! When will you people get that
through your thick skulls?

Then what is it?

It is many things: masturbation takes on the character of the
conditions and environment in which it is done. If done
expeditiously when needed, and without using pornography, it
is a mere body function. With pornography, it is at best a
waste of time, at worst a waste of money also, with the added
danger of becoming habituated to the practice.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As I wrote in my original post, it, at the very least, does
fall into the "sensuality" and "fleshy" aspects of scriptural
admonition.

Sometimes. See above. Its still not sex. Sex requires two
people.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is certainly _self_ishly oriented.

Agreed. If someone else does it for you it becomes something
else.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I can and do pray
to God as my wife and I enjoy one another. However, I don't think
anyone of a sound spiritual mentality can say such a thing while
masturbating. It really isn't an action worthy of either prayer of
worship. If not, then one must consider what options are then
left. So my question remains -what is it if it is not sexual?

Purely physical, IF done without the trappings of pornography.
Certainly not a spiritual act, but neither is defecation or
trimming one's toenails.


Calling masturbation sex is akin to calling the swallowing of
one's own cheek cells cannibalism.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by B.G. Kent
To not allow your child to masturbate is very cruel.

No, it is not. On the contrary: to allow him to fall into the
habit, not knowing what a trap it is, that is what is cruel.

Not sure how a parent would "not allow" a child to masturbate in
the first place, given that it's a private sort of activity.

Now sure how you would know anything, since you did not even read
the WHOLE SENTENCE. I did not say "not allow", I said "allow, not
knowing waht a trap it is".

Yes, but the OP said "to not allow your child to masturbate is very
cruel", and you replied, "no, it is not". That's the point I was
addressing - cruel or not, how would a parent "allow" or "not allow",
in the first place?

But you replied to me, not to the OP. And you made it clear that you
objected to the invasion of privacy, which seemed to be the only way
you could see for the parent to "not allow".

And this objection misses the point: there is a world of difference
between "not allow" and "allow, not knowing that a trap it is". The
latter requires no invasion of privacy at all.

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
Back in the days when people actually did real parenting, they
warned their children away from such things, WITHOUT the abuse of
privacy you are so concerned about.

Warning against excess and obsession - about anything, not just sex -
is fine, and "real parenting" still goes on, as far as that's
concerned.

Your posts do not inspire me with that confidence.

Post by Jani
But some of the extreme measures taken to physically prevent children
from masturbating, which certainly happened in the past and may well
still go on today - that's not "warning", that's abuse.

But this is the "slippery slope" fallacy. It is also a red herring. I
never advocated these "extreme measures". Neither did the OP. So it is
only an irrelevant distraction from the issue at hand.

Post by Jani
And it is not "real parenting".

Post by Matthew Johnson
In the end, we have no choice: we have to leave it up to our
children to choose responsibly. But if we give them the fatherly
guidance they need, they often surprise us by doing this so well.

Or motherly guidance :) But, yes, I agree with you there - much as a
parent's natural instinct is to shield the child from all harm,
that's only appropriate when they're very small. After that, it's an
ongoing process of teaching them to make rational, responsible
decisions *for themselves*.

And you really are living in a cave if you think _this_ is widely
understood by parents of today. All you have to do is look around you
to see the disastrous results of parents who do not understand this.

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Jani
People can be just as blinded by an idealistic worship of
asceticism, as well.

This is extremely rare these days. The opposite problem, total
neglect of asceticism, rules modern day society.

Hmm. I think *genuine* asceticism is probably rare, but there's a
distorted, puritanical version of it which seems to be remarkably
prevalent, at least in the US.

Even that distorted puritanical version is very much on the wane. And
this is why the blinding you are so worried about is so rare. But the
bliniding I am worried about is all around us -- as this very thread
proves in painful clarity.

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani
What's wrong with moderation, and putting sex where it belongs - a
*part* of human activity, not something to get obsessed over from either
side of the equation?

What did you _think_ I was after? You haven't achieved this
moderation yet, judging from your post.

Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. I'm just shaking my head
in bemusement at the incredible fuss and palaver people make about
sex.

Because "shaking your head in bemusement" at this is NOT a good,
Christian reaction to the situation! And if you realized this, you
would not be so unsure of "how I arrived at my conclusion".

Post by Jani
It's a powerful urge, sure, but so's hunger. Both can be controlled,
and an obsession with food is just as unbalanced and unhealthy as an
obsession with sex.

And this is why it is _precisely_ in those sects of Christianity where
fasting is underrated and neglected where this obsession you complain
about is so problematic.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jeff Caird

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As I wrote in my original post, it, at the very least, does
fall into the "sensuality" and "fleshy" aspects of scriptural
admonition.

Sometimes. See above. Its still not sex. Sex requires two
people.

Says who? Intercourse, yes, but intercourse, as already illustrated
is not equal to "sex." I dare say, as was discussed in an earlier
thread, masturbation includes "vain imaginations."

Post by Jeff Caird

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is certainly _self_ishly oriented.

Agreed. If someone else does it for you it becomes something
else.

Even if one is alone, it is self-oriented. It is strickly to pleasure
one's
self.

Post by Jeff Caird

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I can and do pray
to God as my wife and I enjoy one another. However, I don't think
anyone of a sound spiritual mentality can say such a thing while
masturbating. It really isn't an action worthy of either prayer of
worship. If not, then one must consider what options are then
left. So my question remains -what is it if it is not sexual?

Purely physical, IF done without the trappings of pornography.

You're too hard in your definition. What Western man has not
viewed a beer commercial and had that imaged burned into his
memory banks? One cannot watch TV today and not view some
sort of sexual context. So the "trappings of pornography" could
simply be the bill board outside your living room window. It doesn't
have to be some girlie mag or internet porn site. "As a man
thinketh"..... Men have never needed aids. Imagination will
quite adequately supply the immoral thoughts. I'm not being
dogmatic at this point in saying it is impossible for someone to
perform mastubation without impure thoughts, but I will certainly
assert that the percentages are nearly total that that is the
reality.

Post by Jeff Caird
Calling masturbation sex is akin to calling the swallowing of
one's own cheek cells cannibalism.

???? Poor parallelism.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
Not at all. Rather, it is the disgusting audacity in evil-doing of
people like you that reinforces "homphopic/transphobic behavior".

Great logic: Forget homelessness, forget hunger, forget rampant
sexual abuse by the clergy,

None of that is _my_ logic. That is your "straw-man" argument.

Post by shegeek72
but rather focus on minute portions of the population, i.e. 2% to 4%
for gays / lesbians and around 1% for transsexuals. Do we stick our
noses into your lives and castigate Christians and call you "evil?"

Yes, you do. You do it all the time. You even do it so thoughtlessly
that you have forgotten about it already. Or are you fully deliberate
in speaking this untruth?

Post by shegeek72
We are people born with a biological condition that, looking at the
evidence,

But you never _do_ look at the evidence, except with a jaundiced eye,
bent on seeing what you have already made up your mind must be true.

Post by shegeek72
happens prenatally and is most likely due to a mix-up in hormone
balance during critical periods of the fetus' development.

That 'research' is about as believable as the tobacco-company
sponsored research claiming that smoking is OK.

Post by shegeek72
There is
nothing inherently harmful in being born transsexual,

This question assumes the false premise that people _are_ born that
way. In case you have not noticed, I am not alone in rejecting this
false premise.

Post by shegeek72
just as there's nothing inhrently harmful being born inter-sexed
(which happens in 1 in 2000 births).

This is a fundamentally different case.

Post by shegeek72
Also, you've ignored the genetic evidence of some babies being born a
phenotype male, but with XX genes and vice-versa,

I haven't ignored it. I don't believe it. It is _really_ basic
genetics that in mammals, "the Y makes the guY". Just remember that
'Y' here should refer to the presence of an SRY region, NOT just to a
Y chromosome (as they told us in high school bio years ago).

In fact, your ridiculous assertion about "phenotype male" shows that
you do not even know what the word 'phenotype' MEANS. And yet here you
would tell us what the scientific evidence is? Give me a break.

The _scientific_ evidence is that AIS is a _disorder_.

Post by shegeek72
as well as other combinations such as XXY, XXX, etc.

This is an irrelevant distraction. It is the presence of Y that
determines the male. XXX is obviously female. You were clearly NOT
born XXX.

Post by shegeek72
Nature doesn't
produce human sex in neat, little boxes of strictly male and female
-- there are variations.

Not enough variation to justify your claims.

Post by shegeek72
GID is a recognized medical condition that's treated by
board-certified plastic surgeons and Masters-level and
advanced-degreed health professionals.

Take a little tour through medical history to see what _exactly_ the
same level of professionals called "medical conditions" in the
past. Then you will not be so confident of their judgment.

Post by shegeek72
Transgender has existed in every culture since the dawn of humans and
were revered in some cultures.

This is obvious revisionism in history.

Post by shegeek72
For example, the Iroquois Indians revered the transgender, or
third-sex, as a Shawoman / mediator.

More revisionism.

Post by shegeek72
We have no desire to "drag people down."

Then why are you doing it all the time?

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, there are stingent requirements that must be met before a
transsexual can be approved for hormone therapy and sex reassignment
surgery (SRS), to weed out those who aren't true transsexuals.

And those 'requirements' simply make sure that the sinner will not
repent. That only makes it a worse crime.

Post by shegeek72
It's time to put away your prejudices and condemnation and
concentrate on more important issues than harass and ostracize a tiny
portion of the population.

Clean your finger before you point at my spots. I have seen more false
prejudice and unjustified condemnation in your posts than in any one
other person's in this NG in the last 20 years.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Jani
[]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani
I think Matthew is saying that your physical death would be
justified, if it meant that you were no longer allowed to
perpetrate what he considers as spiritual harm by advocating
acceptance of gay and/or trans people as Christians.
If I've misinterpreted what he said, I would appreciate
clarification from him.

You did misinterpret it, just as you misinterpreted my other post
in this same thread. You are 0 for 2!

OK. Let's have a look at your clarification, then ...

Take a closer look this time. The 'look' you took was not worthy of
the name.

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
What part of "far smaller harm" did you not understand? And how did
you miss the referenced to Mat 5:30? Surely the relevance is not
that hard to understand.
My point is that the self-inflicted spiritual harm is much worse
than the harm of even something as horrible as murder. I do _not_
justify murder by any means.

Ah. Now, originally you said "being murdered is a far smaller harm
than the harm you threaten people with". So, as I understood it, you
weren't referring to spiritual harm shegeek might be doing to
herself, but to other people.

Yes, I was originally referring to the harm 'sheegek' threatens others
with. But this is only a partial excuse for your error, accusing me of
calling for murder. Don't forget: although 'shegeek' plays the role
of the tempter, like the snake in the Garden of Eden, the tempted who
fall bear the responsibility for their own fall. I am not putting that
responsibility on 'shegeek'.

That is why your point about "society as a whole" (below) is really
out of place. Or will you accuse Christ Himself of neglecting
considerations of "society as a whole" in Mt 18:1-10?

I also see that you are still overlooking the reference to Mat
5:30. What does it take, Jani, to get you to look at the whole before
you decide what a part means?

Then again, I am not surprised that you have completely failed to
understand this thread. Not only have you shown a knack for speaking
up when you have no idea what you are talking about in other threads,
but here, you show you do not understand the enormity of what
shegeek's has done; for you refer to 'sheegeek' as 'she'. By doing
this, you support the massive, deep _fraud_ 'shegeek' has committed --
and continues to commit.

Post by Jani
That, to me, indicates that you feel the "smaller harm" of shegeek
being murdered is preferable to the "greater harm" she does to
society-as-a-whole, by saying that gay and/or TG people should be
accepted.

No. That simply does not follow at all. Perhaps if I were a Klansman,
looking for excuses for murder, I might be sucked into believing such
an argument. But I am not, so I don't. What is your excuse? Outright
disbelief in the Lord's words in Mat 18:7?

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
Of course, if I hadn't been in such a hurry, I would have also
but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to
sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone
fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the
sea. (Mat 18:6 RSVA)
So yes, it would be better for 'shegeek' to be drowned in the depth
of the sea than to continue in the depravity 'shegeek' insists on.

From the perspective of shegeek's own spiritual well-being, though,
or that of the population at large?

Read the context of the citation! Read _at least_ Mat 18:1-10. If that
doesn't make the answer clear enough, what is there I can do to get
the point across?