Masturbation and christians

---

Wow this thread seems to have taken on a life of its own!

damien said:

In reply to:

---

Which particular passage about masturbation or sexuality do you think has been "spun" in translation? I doubt you'd be any more pleased with the "actual" translation.

---

/i wasn't thinking of any one specific passage as such. However it is well known amongst scholars that the Bible has been 'edited' in the past to suit certain agendas. We know for a fact that the four Gospels in the New Testament only represent a fraction of the Gospels that were actually written. I recently bought a book in my local cathedral shop which was about the various ancient Gospels which didn't make it into the Canon of the New Testament. Perhaps the best known of those is the4 Protavengalem of St James but there were many others besides including the Gospel of Thomas, The infacy of Thomas and I even think one by Mary Magdalene.

The bottom line on masturbation is that it's not mentioned explicitly in the Bible and I would certainly interpret ant passages which relate to sexual wrongdoing within the time and cultural context within which they were written as well as the light of modern morality. Most churches would I think take the view that masturbation as such was not a sin although other activities related to it might be.

I know it's but one tradition but the Anglican church has always appealed to Scripture, Reason and Tradition not 'sola scriptura' in reaching decisions about matters of morality as well as other things.

Scripture, Reason and TraditionReligious fundamentalists will buy into the first concept, but not the second or third.

I agree with you about there not being anything mentioned in the Bible directly concerning whether masturbation is a sin or not.I disagree with blanket statements concerning the purity (unaltered state) of the Bible...especially the KJV. People, especially non-believers and athiests, are fond of saying it's been altered to another's agenda...but never seem to be able to point to where. Is that too much to ask, to point where? Other portions of scripture that were written are of dubious value...I've read some of what is found in the Apocryphal (contains books that were omitted from the Bible), and, being quite familiar with the Bible myself, find that there are portions that don't fit. Some were written by Gnostics and seem...how shall I say this...not inspired by God. They don't fit in with the rest of the Bible, which is why they were omitted. But, they were not destroyed. You can go out and pick up a copy of the Apocryphal and find out for yourself.As for modern morality, it is not the yardstick to be measuring anything moral by any stretch. It would be like measuring the accuracy of a ruler with your own foot and deferring, in the case of arguement, to your foot. The Bible is the yardstick you should be using for the very reason that it DOES lie outside of our own personal ideas about what morals should be...that will waver with our desires of what they should be. To say that another might have altered the Bible for their own perposes does not make us incapable of attempting to do the same with morals ourselves.

In reply to:people, especially non-believers and athiests, are fond of saying it's been altered to another's agenda...but never seem to be able to point to where. Is that too much to ask, to point where?You must not be very well-read on the matter, and why should you be, since you think that, as a fundamentalist, your beliefs are correct by definition, and exploring them is a big waste of time, and might offend your deity?I've written recently about the difficulty of translating from the ancient languages of the scriptures to modern languages. It is very difficult to maintain the intent of the original words, written in the context of their time. Newer translations of biblical scriptures are in some places at variance with the King James version, since scholarship in ancient languages has progressed quite a bit since the days of Old English.It's pretty hard to argue that the original Catholic translation of the scriptures into vulgate Latin is accurate. Dare I say that the church had an agenda?Here's a Web page by a Christian clergyman on the ins and outs of currently-available versions of the bible.Interesting historical information on bible translation into English. An essay written by a Pentecostal minister about problems with bible translations.book: Distorting Scripture?: The Challenge of Bible Translation & Gender Accuracy (about the NIV translation)Some specifics about the difficulty in translation from the ancient languages. Much more on problems in translation by Andrew Harrison, posted today.Most of those articles are not deeply academic, but you can find many articles by academics in religion and linguistics who have written a lot about pitfalls in translation and interpretation.In any case, your faith in the flawless accuracy of the KJV is misplaced, and if you'd read up on the subject, you'd understand why.In reply to:Other portions of scripture that were written are of dubious value...I've read some of what is found in the Apocryphal (contains books that were omitted from the Bible), and, being quite familiar with the Bible myself, find that there are portions that don't fit. Some were written by Gnostics and seem...how shall I say this...not inspired by God. They don't fit in with the rest of the Bible, which is why they were omitted. But, they were not destroyed. You can go out and pick up a copy of the Apocryphal and find out for yourself.On the matter of the canonical books versus the Apocrypha, I wonder what qualifies you to decide which ones are "real" and which aren't. There are many people who consider the Apocrypha, or various parts of it, to be inspired. Can you back up your opinion with anything besides your opinion?In reply to:As for modern morality, it is not the yardstick to be measuring anything moral by any stretch. It would be like measuring the accuracy of a ruler with your own foot and deferring, in the case of arguement, to your foot. The Bible is the yardstick you should be using for the very reason that it DOES lie outside of our own personal ideas about what morals should be...that will waver with our desires of what they should be. To say that another might have altered the Bible for their own perposes does not make us incapable of attempting to do the same with morals ourselves.There are many books of ethics and morality, from the scriptures of the ancient religions through the writings of the philosophers, through the Boy Scout credo. Which one are you going to believe? A minority of the world population interprets the Christian bible literally. Anyone can make the case that his holy book is the correct one, and an atheist can make the case that none of them are.There's only a slight difference between a fundamentalist and an atheist: A fundamentalist says that his scriptures are right and the thousands of others are wrong. An atheist would say that the fundamentalist is almost correct. He's just off by one.

The fundamentalist cannot live with uncertainty. The English-speaking Christian fundamentalist has the problem that there are some differences in manuscripts of the original texts, and differences between translations. This he cannot cope with, so he must have a standard English translation that he can consider inerrant or he is lost.The Muslim fundamentalist has less problem here, as all Muslims are expected to read the Koran in the original. There are some textual differences between manuscripts, but as the work was written much later they are fewer, and there is a standard received version.

I agree, and what you say about the Koran is absolutely correct. In fact, the Mormons and Scientologists (who speak English) have an even easier time.> The fundamentalist cannot live with uncertainty.That bears repeating.

Steve, you don't understand some of the things I've been saying all along. My familiarity with the Bible is how I base my view of the ommitted books. There are some that I like and I think are valid. Some of the words of Solomon omitted from the Bible are quite telling...much is about people like you, as a matter of fact (mockers). But when we stop and think about the intent of the Bible, we see that it's about us...not about how to judge others. My familiarity with the Bible is what qualifies me to see this. Apparently, I'm not alone in my views. Take a look at how the decision was made as to what books should be included...hundreds of knowledgeable folks made the decisions.For the record, I don't take everything in the Bible as litteral. There is alot of metaphor and symbolism in it...especially in the book of Revelations and, to a lesser extent, Genesis.Now, as to your links, they have pointed out some difficulty in understanding some of the wording found in Bibles... but this is far different than finding errors. For one who is truly interested in knowing what is found in the Bible, it does not present an unsurmountable problem.

My familiarity not absolute knowlage>There are some that I like and I think are validyou choice as a man>Take a look at how the decision was made as to what books should be includedthe choice of men, not god>There is alot of metaphor and symbolism in itwide open to interpretation through anyone's personal filtersI'm not actually cririsizing your words but just showing how your ideas represent the problems with the system in general. When we talk of the word of god, we talk as humans. When we describe god, we describe her in human terms.Your own words suggest there is no absolute truth to be found in the bible or anywhere... so what's the point?The faithful both take lives and save them, they both fornicate and abstain. Take comfort in your faith because in the end, that's all it was ever for.

Sure there's absolute truth. Just because we humans are foulable doesn't mean it's not there. We are simpley charged with doing the best we can to get to it. BUT...if one starts out with something else (other than the Bible), then the odds are already stacked against them.As for the metaphors and symbolism, yes, they are open to interpretation...but in my experience (and that of many others I've spoken with) it's amazing how often those who approach them in good faith reach the same conclusions. It's when one is, at the start, not honest with themselves about their motives for looking into the Bible that they find a difference of opinion as to the meaning. The Bible helps those who are honest with themselves and who are honestly looking for answers. Take a personal agenda (or vendetta) into it and you won't get as much out of it.

Its sooooo funny how a religious post receives more replies than most typical posts. People always end up trying to make everyone believe that their opinion is right on matters and then before you know it the original question gets put on the back burner. Its really sad how it something that cant be discussed without someone getting offended, because I myself truly enjoy talking about such things in a respectful manner. Awwww well have fun posting away on this guys.

but what you're saying is that "if you believe what I believe, that you will see what I see"That suggests that the faith preceeds the book. Therin lies the #1 question about religion... Who made who?>if one starts out with something else (other than the Bible)but we did. Now, it's pointless to start an evolution/creation debate again but at least concider this; In the history of mankind and it's systems of survival an social growth, religion, especially Christianity, is a bit of a "Johnny come lately"

Thor, this isn't necessarily to you just a question in general.

Here's some background. I am by no means a theologian. I was raised in the Catholic church but I've never read the bible and honestly have no desire to. My opinion, Jesus seemed like a kewl guy but I have no affinity for any of the religions organized around him. Again my opinion, Christianity, in all of the forms I've seen, seems to marginalize his teachings to further individual teaching of a sect by focusing heavily on bits and pieces of the old testament.

Here's the question. In all these debates people never seem to quote Jesus. In all the dank recess of my mind I never remember him having anything to say on masturbation or most other popular subjects. Surely masturbation was no less then, why did he not think it important enough to comment on? I find this question to be germane in that interpretation and symbolism has been brought up.

Doesn't it seem that some correlation can be extrapolated in the fact that Jesus didn't mention it. Maybe he didn't think it was that important, he seemed far more concerned with how people treat each other. At least, for what it's worth, that's how this heathen savage sees it.

I agree with you...in the grand scheme of things masturbation really isn't that important. (Interesting thing to say on this message board, eh?) It is, as you pointed out, the man-made organizations (otherwise known as churches) that take a stance on such things. While I agree that churches need to take a stance on certain things, generally speaking, I think that the stance they take isn't always appropriate. That is to say, they take stances on things that don't fall in their camp. I think if you take a spiritual look at the whole thing, the question at hand (no pun intended) answers itself. In a marriage, two become one, and masturbation becomes selfish...you should be sharing with your partner. Is this an unforgiveable sin? I don't think so...but it IS a sign that something in the relationship may not be quite right. For somebody who's single, I think it's something natural...as long as it doesn't become obsessive. Obsession over anything is not psychologically healthy, in my opinion.

that's a fairly even apraoch to the who idea. The only problem there is in the marrage thing.. masterbation isn't a sign of a problem. One's partner isn't always available, people have differing libidos, women have menstral cycles, etc, etc. Now some use thos facts to justify infidelity. I think masterbation is much more noble than cheating.One might even argue (this is a stetch so work with me people) god created masterbation to help prevent fornication and infidelity

In reply to: Its really sad how it something that cant be discussed without someone getting offended, because I myself truly enjoy talking about such things in a respectful manner. I've chosen to stay out of this discussion for whatever reason. But I have to say, so far it looks like a pretty respectful discussion with no one taking offense. I wish all threads here looked like this one.

the problem with this one is it seems touch and go between debating about the validity about the bible and such and answering the persons question

the question was answered early on which lead to the ensuing discussions. It didn't really go too far off topic really