Happy Atheist Forum

Quote from: "onlyme"court, the reason I class homosexuals as such is because, according to the bible, 'every other sin is outside the body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.'

does that clarify the issue?  If not, please look up the bible reference, which, after all, I adhere to, or post again, requesting more information.

The bible has an archaic, ridiculous, unnatural, backwards view of sex. How can following your natural sexual desires be a sin against your body? Do you see masturbation as a sin as well?

court, masturbation - I'm not sure if it's a sin, but I think it is something to be avoided in an 'ideal' sort of way, as it involves fantasies which may not be helpful, or conducive to the general good of people in society.

please, if you will, start a new thread, maybe we can bounce ideas off one-another.

(This is the new thread )

What "ideal" sort of way do you mean? It's completely healthy to masturbate. In fact, for males, it's a way to keep physically healthy.
I'm pretty sure no private sexual fantasies have ever harmed society. If you can think of one, shoot.
Not only that, but you can't stop fantasies. They're going to happen. How does it make them "worse" to physically masturbate?

No, I'm saying that, generally, what people tend to masturbate, or fantasise over, they tend to translate into real life.  For example, raping women, or paedophilia, or whatever.  Whatever the mind focuses on for prolonged periods of time, they then tend to translate into real life scenarios.   Is it healthy for a man to fantasise continuously about tying up and raping a woman, and then, after a long period of considering this as normal behaviour, to then translate this into normal behaviour, and impose it on society at large?

How often do you think that happens? Honestly. I'm talking about normal, functioning human beings. The person you just described wouldn't relate to christian morals, anyway.
 Let's try a different tack: Do you think it's immoral for YOU to masturbate? I know you're married now, but do you think it's bad for a normal, single man or woman to masturbate?

My two cents:

Scripture never spoke to the topic of masturbation distinctly.  Most people think it falls into the category of acts which Paul called "unprofitable," I.E. the physical act of masturbation is neutral until combined with fantasy.  It comes down to a matter of the heart not the act itself.  Therefore it depends greatly on what the fantasy entails.  If I have a fantasy about my wife and I masturbate to that, no harm, no foul.  In contradistinction, if I were to fantasize about another woman that opens up a whole other can of worms.  

What is the emotional difference between masturbating to the thought of an adulterous act or actually comitting the act itself.  In my wife's eyes probably no difference.  What actually stings the most about infidelity, the thought of the actual physical act or mental anguish of rejection and the internalizing of the betrayal that our partner feels? Hence the teaching that if a man desires in his heart to committ adultery, he has committed the act already whether the physical act ever occurs.

Why do you think people default to the excuse of "it was only physical" when they get caught cheating?  I think it's because inherently we understand that the heart connection means more than the physical act.

I understand that these are the views of a desperately old fashioned married man so take them for what their worth.

I've never understood the idea that the thought is as bad as the action. You can't help your thoughts. They are the unintentional firing of chemicals in your brain. If I feel lusty toward the pool boy for a few minutes, who cares? Moreover, how do I stop it if it's innocent and unintentional?
And "the physical act of masturbation is neutral until combined with fantasy"? I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but does anyone else here have a hard time doing that without thinking of anything? Is it possible to masturbate without some sort of fantasy?

Leviticus 15:16-18
And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.
Gen.38:9-10
And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
Deuteronomy 23:10-11
If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp. But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again.


It can be vague, yes, but the bible does mention masturbation...

Quote from: "Court"I've never understood the idea that the thought is as bad as the action. You can't help your thoughts. They are the unintentional firing of chemicals in your brain. If I feel lusty toward the pool boy for a few minutes, who cares? Moreover, how do I stop it if it's innocent and unintentional?
And "the physical act of masturbation is neutral until combined with fantasy"? I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but does anyone else here have a hard time doing that without thinking of anything? Is it possible to masturbate without some sort of fantasy?

court, what then about paedophilia (english spelling)?  Are they then the unintentional firing of chemicals in your brain, and therefor to be excused?  Personally I think that everyone should control his/her emotions for the benefit of society at large.

I think you made my point for me.  Thoughts preceed action; quintessential Viktor Frankel philosophy.  Re-read my post carefully.  I said it depends on what the object of desire is.

QuoteThey are the unintentional firing of chemicals in your brain.

Interesting how we tend to repeat fantasies if we like them.  I would hardly attribute that to unintentional firings.

QuoteMoreover, how do I stop it if it's innocent and unintentional?

First I don't agree with you that thoughts are unintentional as it presumes to understand congitive responses of why we think at all and secondly fantasies in themselves are not evil.  Meditating on or acting on those fantasies that you know be detrimental or evil is wrong.

Pedophilia is only dangerous if they act on it. I'm talking about the thought. Do you honestly equate unintentional fantasies with actually raping children?

Edit: Okay, maybe not unintentional. But I don't think the thoughts, especially if the person knows they are wrong, and tries to repress them, are as bad as the act.

Maybe I should have been more specific to say that Jesus didn't teach about it.  I stand corrected.

Quote from: "iplaw"First I don't agree with you that thoughts are unintentional as it presumes to understand congitive responses of why we think at all and secondly fantasies in themselves are not evil.  Meditating on or acting on those fantasies that you know be detrimental or evil is wrong.

Are you telling me you've never had any unintentional thoughts?
I agree with your second point. I don't think that thoughts that we know are bad should be lingered upon. I also don't think thinking them in the first place is as bad as committing the act.

Okay, I have to go home. I'll be back tomorrow morning, gentlemen.

No I have thoughts that I often wonder, "where did that come from?"  I just prefer not to presume to know why thoughts come and go and I'm not so willing to chalk them up to unintentional chemical responses.

Can you imagine a scenario where a person would committ an act without there existing a preceding thought to initiate the act?  They work together not independently.  

I should have been more specific in stating that dwelling on the thought of adultery is the evil, not the inital thought, in that regard you are correct.  I can see a beautiful woman on the street and think "wow, she's hot" and that's not a sin.  What is sin is to dwell on that thought and begin to fantasize about it.

Also, I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong and I am right.  I'm just stating what I believe to be what Christ taught and I don't presume to speak for others.

Sex. Love it. Can't have enough of it. Is there anything more than that? I mean, come on!  

And if wringing out the Rhesus is a sin, I'm going straight to you-know-where!

I think it's safe to say almost everyone here has had a rape fantasy at one point or another. I've had several but I do not act them out. I can distiguish fantasy (safe in my head) and reality. I've also thought about killing some people out of pure rage but realize that it is a moment of anger and let it pass. Though genetically (to my still primitive brain, as we all possess) it is not as satisfying.

Quote from: "Court"Pedophilia is only dangerous if they act on it.

But the "biblical world view," which perpetuates ignorance from the childhood of the race, encourages adult men to marry adolescent girls. We still see this practice in many traditional societies:

The Bride Price (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09BRI.html?ex=1154145600&en=a3e9ba50cc38ab8a&ei=5070)

my 2 cts.

There is nothing sinful about the human body. Sex is an normal human urge that can be very enjoyable whether you do it alone or with a partner.  There is also nothing wrong with having sexual fantasies, even if they are kinky ones. Acting out your fantasies without mutual concent is however not o.k.

I love the "unpure thoughts" argument in which our thoughts are sinful. We are not in control of our thoughts, only our actions. Hang with me on this one ... if we were in control of our thoughts, wouldn't we have to think about the subject we wanted to control? Wouldn't we have to systematically examine every thought and determine its purity and then discard the unpure thoughts and maintain the pure thoughts? Wouldn't that require us to think about the subject, which itself is unpure. So, logically, it is absolutely impossible to avoid impure thought.

As far as most fantasies go, they mostly remain fantasies, sexually-oriented or not. If they became reality, then they really wouldn't be fantasies but plans.

well observed, JNTB

something to think about.  But we do all get impure thoughts, which assault us without warning.  I think the danger is when we dwell on them, because that's when we are likely to translate thought into action.

I think, from a biblical point of view, which I believe, and as is often said in Christian circles "temptation is not sin, it only becomes sin when acted upon."  The bible says that even Jesus was tempted, in every way that we are.  I don't know what that means exactly.  But I do believe that temptation (impure thoughts) are not quite the same thing as acting upon said thoughts.  After all, most of us I suppose are tempted to pocket a pile of cash when we see it, but if we resist, that is a good thing.  

Battling temptation is something that affects us all, not just Christians.  Sometimes we have to act for the good of society at large, and not just feed our own selfish desires.

So, onlyme, with that ideology in mind, do you think masturbating and sex are acceptable practices?

Quote from: "Court"So, onlyme, with that ideology in mind, do you think masturbating and sex are acceptable practices?

I think masturbating is something to be avoided is possible, because it sees another person as a purely sexual object.  Is that really a good thing?  I think not.  We should try to treat people with the respect that they are due, whether in thought or action.

As for sex, yes, I think it is a good thing within the confines of marriage.  People may disagree.  I myself find it hard, but I see this as the highest ideal, which I admit is hard to live up to.

How do you know that all masturbation is just purely sexual in EVERY aspect? Some people may enjoy the idea of being close to their imaginary partner or various other reasons (one of them may wear the Burqa or something). Have you peered into every person's head who is jerkin the kerkin and seen what they fantasize about?

Don't answer that question, it was hopefully rhetorical.

Quote from: "onlyme"I think masturbating is something to be avoided is possible, because it sees another person as a purely sexual object.  Is that really a good thing?  

Hey, if women masturbated while fantasizing about me as a sex object, I wouldn't mind in the least! I'd much prefer that over my history where women have ignored me sexually. (Women walk around me because they can't walk through me, but otherwise they have treated me as effectively invisible.)

Quote from: "onlyme"

Quote from: "Court"So, onlyme, with that ideology in mind, do you think masturbating and sex are acceptable practices?

I think masturbating is something to be avoided is possible, because it sees another person as a purely sexual object.  

So, you don't care that it's perfectly natural and beneficial? Masturbation can help relieve stress, reduce menstrual cramps, stimulate the immune systems, reduce spontaneous erections and wet dreams for males, and reduce the chances of getting prostate cancer. Most of this was found by googling "benefits of masturbation" (several sources concur on the benefits), but the prostate cancer source is here. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3942) Plus, it makes sex better because you are more aware of your own body and what works for you.
And, pray tell, how does masturbating see someone as a purely sexual object (although I don't exactly see a problem with this. We are animals, after all. Mating is biological function.)? It has nothing to do with other people. That's the point.

Quote from: "onlyme"As for sex, yes, I think it is a good thing within the confines of marriage.  People may disagree.  I myself find it hard, but I see this as the highest ideal, which I admit is hard to live up to.

I do disagree, but I used to think the same thing. Then I realized sex is not that much different from eating. It's something that's healthy, normal, necessary, and should be done with a smidgen of caution (ie-I shouldn't eat bad food, I should use birth control). It's okay to act like a normal human being.

In addition to considering masturbation a good thing in some contexts, I also approve of jealousy. If a woman felt jealous because she thought that I had shifted my affections from her to another woman, I would genuinely appreciate that. Jealousy, like masturbatory sexual fantasies, would indicate that I have value to a woman.

Women are the devil! They have devil holes!!! Their vaginas attract bears!!! Having sex with women should only be to procreate to further our numbers!!! So says Jebus!! After all, this coming from a guy who hung out with hookers! He never touched them!

www.sexisforfags.com (http://www.sexisforfags.com)

All of the interesting discussions happen when I walk away for awhile...  

Anyway, there have been a lot of interesting replies so we will soon see if there's really anything I can add to the conversation. Hopefully, this post doesn't end up too long-winded.

Quote from: "onlyme"No, I'm saying that, generally, what people tend to masturbate, or fantasise over, they tend to translate into real life. For example, raping women, or paedophilia, or whatever.

Quote from: "onlyme"Whatever the mind focuses on for prolonged periods of time, they then tend to translate into real life scenarios.

Whoa, slow down onlyme. Maybe you act out every little thought that slides past your consciousness but for me, the vast majority of my thoughts go without any physical action to substantiate them. I very strongly believe that no thought in itself is wrong. It doesn't matter how twisted or vile the thought is. If it is unaccompanied by an action, it is harmless. Many of the actions these thoughts could help bring about may be very wrong. But that doesn't affect the innocence of the thoughts alone.  

The concept of "thought crime" is one of the most erroneous and ridiculous things I have ever heard. People are afraid to admit some of the thoughts that they conjure up. I'd be lying if I said that I liked or was even indifferent about all of the thoughts that have occurred in my mind in the past. But I don't have a problem with them and see no inherent "wrong" that I committed.

Everyone has these thoughts. Everyone on occasion will have a random thought that causes the immediate second thought "How the hell did that get into my head?"

Quote from: "onlyme"Personally I think that everyone should control his/her emotions for the benefit of society at large.

So you're basically saying that we have to restrain themselves from our natural animalistic instincts? Thoughts alone, without actions, should even be actively repressed?

Quote from: "iplaw"Can you imagine a scenario where a person would committ an act without there existing a preceding thought to initiate the act?  They work together not independently.

Not every action requires active conscious thought. Many small things people do throughout the day are not thought about. I constantly crack my knuckles. Usually, I don't actually think about what I'm doing. I know, it isn't the type of complex action you are probably alluding to, but it is an action nonetheless and should be mentioned.

Quote from: "iplaw"I should have been more specific in stating that dwelling on the thought of adultery is the evil, not the inital thought, in that regard you are correct.  I can see a beautiful woman on the street and think "wow, she's hot" and that's not a sin.  What is sin is to dwell on that thought and begin to fantasize about it.

I don't think either are wrong. The initial thought and the longer fantasy are both completely harmless to the woman on the street (she isn't even aware it's going on).

Quote from: "JNTB"I love the "unpure thoughts" argument in which our thoughts are sinful. We are not in control of our thoughts, only our actions. Hang with me on this one ... if we were in control of our thoughts, wouldn't we have to think about the subject we wanted to control? Wouldn't we have to systematically examine every thought and determine its purity and then discard the unpure thoughts and maintain the pure thoughts? Wouldn't that require us to think about the subject, which itself is unpure. So, logically, it is absolutely impossible to avoid impure thought.

This is a very interesting point. You can't stop a thought because that requires thinking about the thought that you want to quit thinking about. Ah... the human mind is a very fascinating subject, isn't it?

Quote from: "onlyme"I think masturbating is something to be avoided is possible, because it sees another person as a purely sexual object.  Is that really a good thing?  I think not.  We should try to treat people with the respect that they are due, whether in thought or action.

It's not a good thing. It's not a bad thing either. It simply doesn't matter either way. Restraining sexual thoughts in the mind out of respect? That is something I can't grasp. Your brain is the only place where you are truly free to do whatever you want to whatever you want. It is the only place where there aren't consequences, because there aren't actions. I will not subject the parts of my mind that will never become physical actions to the "quality control" system that many people feel are necessary. Sexual thoughts, any thoughts for that matter, don't cause harm to anyone. No one ends up feeling "disrespected". Hell, I'm sure a lot of people would be flattered that they were the primary subject of someone's fantasy.

Quote from: "Court"So, you don't care that it's perfectly natural and beneficial? Masturbation can help relieve stress, reduce menstrual cramps, stimulate the immune systems, reduce spontaneous erections and wet dreams for males, and reduce the chances of getting prostate cancer. Most of this was found by googling "benefits of masturbation" (several sources concur on the benefits), but the prostate cancer source is here. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3942) Plus, it makes sex better because you are more aware of your own body and what works for you.

Those are all excellent arguments for masturbation. From a health standpoint alone, masturbation is a very good thing.

EDIT:

Quote from: "Jassman"Hopefully, this post doesn't end up too long-winded.

Shit, it was extremely long-winded... And I made it even longer by quoting my own post within itself (has that ever been done before?).

QuoteI don't think either are wrong. The initial thought and the longer fantasy are both completely harmless to the woman on the street (she isn't even aware it's going on).

That wasn't my point.  YOU are aware of it and it's the YOU that I am concerned with not the other person.  I am not speaking of you directly just in the figurative sense in the story.  Sin begins and ends in the heart not the action was my point.

Quote from: "Jassman"Hell, I'm sure a lot of people would be flattered that they were the primary subject of someone's fantasy.

Shit, I would. Even if it was merely as a "sexual object" and not a person.

Quote from: "Jassman"Not every action requires active conscious thought. Many small things people do throughout the day are not thought about. I constantly crack my knuckles. Usually, I don't actually think about what I'm doing. I know, it isn't the type of complex action you are probably alluding to, but it is an action nonetheless and should be mentioned.

Good point. I didn't think of that.

I agree with everything you said, Jassman. As a whole, I've noticed that atheists have a much healthier view of sex and "forbidden thoughts" than christians (or any religious followers).

Quote from: "iplaw"

QuoteI don't think either are wrong. The initial thought and the longer fantasy are both completely harmless to the woman on the street (she isn't even aware it's going on).

That wasn't my point.  YOU are aware of it and it's the YOU that I am concerned with not the other person.  I am not speaking of you directly just in the figurative sense in the story.  Sin begins and ends in the heart not the action was my point.

Okay, I get that. But I think "sin" is a man-made concept used to keep the masses in line, so of course I won't agree that fantasizing is harmful, even to yourself. *Shrug* It's normal, and I've never noticed it harming my relationships with anyone.
If you have to use some willpower to keep yourself from acting out your fantasies, then there's a problem. But a sexual fantasy about a stranger? I don't see the problem, even if you are in a relationship with someone else. You wouldn't even consider actually approaching that stranger, so there's no risk.
I can, however, think of situations where fantasy could harm a relationship. But I think a person should be able to tell for themselves the difference between an innocent fantasy and a harmful one.

And would the fantasy really make even so much as a ripple in the world? Would it cause me to make different choices with my life or to view the people I come across day to day differently or with any less respect? I doubt it. I doubt it would change a single thing.

Quote from: "Court"As a whole, I've noticed that atheists have a much healthier view of sex and "forbidden thoughts" than christians (or any religious followers).

I agree. And I should, I'm an atheist.    The Christians would beg to differ though. They see their view as the healthy one...

The "thought crime" subject is a very intriguing one to me. Actually, anything that has to do with the inner workings of the human mind and how it gathers/moves/deletes thoughts and ideas really interests me. My mind is curious as to how it works I guess (what a strange situation if you stop and think about it).

What was interesting was at the last place I worked, when a lot of people's breaks coincided at the same time, we had the "thought crime" debate. It was split right down the religious/non-religious line of whether thoughts could be wrong or not. I don't believe there was a single exception. The religious people wanted to monitor their thoughts extensively and the atheists didn't see anything wrong with merely thinking about something.

QuoteThe religious people wanted to monitor their thoughts extensively and the atheists didn't see anything wrong with merely thinking about something.

It's because religious people tend to believe that deliberate (thought I would be specific) actions follow thoughts and never the reverse.  So to stop a stupid or harmful action you deal with the thought that precedes it.  As I stated yesterday, classical Viktor Frankel philosophy.

It is possible to regulate exactly which thoughts are going to be carried out without killing off thoughts that might be dangerous if acted upon though. I'm not sure how well I can explain it with text, but I'll try.

The Christian idea would be to just kill off any thoughts that could pose a threat or to otherwise cause some kind of sin.

My view is to let thoughts run where they may, distinctly flagging thoughts that are not to be turned into actions but still allowing them to coexist with your "universally acceptable" thoughts in your mind. It allows more freedom I think, and ultimately the "bad" thoughts can be altered and possibly help you to achieve something creative.

Maybe this post sounds like an acid trip to everyone but me, but it is sometimes very difficult changing abstract concepts that only exist in my mind into English words. Sorry if it came out unintelligible.

No, I get what you're saying. We are limited by our language, which makes me think of this very interesting discussion I once had in a class about how our thoughts and physical perceptions are limited by linguistics. Anyhow, I digress.

I understand that thoughts often precede action. I don't even disagree with you on it. But if I have a yummy fantasy about the pool boy, I don't think I should actively repress it unless I know something physical will become of it. Surely christians are not so weak-willed as to honestly want to bow to their every random thought? Of course not. You should be able to discern what thoughts are dangerous--as someone said earlier, those that are "plans," instead of mere fantasies. So, if the fantasy is adultery, then that means that you want to physically act out the fantasy, unlike my pool boy thoughts.

Quote from: "Court"No, I get what you're saying. We are limited by our language, which makes me think of this very interesting discussion I once had in a class about how our thoughts and physical perceptions are limited by linguistics. Anyhow, I digress.

I've had a conversation about that subject and one about my theories on how the mind probably functions with a good friend. It was absolutely fascinating. I think it lasted almost 4 hours (due to a few too many beers I think). I'd like to have many more discussions about that (it helps to form a more objective view by being allowed to peer into other peoples' minds once in awhile), but it seems that most people I know aren't interested in conversations as deep as the ones I crave.

Quote from: "Court"I understand that thoughts often precede action. I don't even disagree with you on it. But if I have a yummy fantasy about the pool boy, I don't think I should actively repress it unless I know something physical will become of it.

Yeah, I think we do have the same opinion with this. I don't think thought repression is a good idea either.

Quote from: "Court"Surely christians are not so weak-willed as to honestly want to bow to their every random thought? Of course not. You should be able to discern what thoughts are dangerous--as someone said earlier, those that are "plans," instead of mere fantasies. So, if the fantasy is adultery, then that means that you want to physically act out the fantasy, unlike my pool boy thoughts.

I don't think the Christians really believe that free thought is as dangerous as they say it is. It just becomes another "Look what kind of monster I would be if I didn't have Jesus in my life!" Most of them don't give themselves enough credit. They see themselves as horrible, sinful beings that constantly need guidance. I see them as decent people who attribute all of their positives to a man in the sky and all of their negatives to themselves.

Quote from: "Jassman"I'd like to have many more discussions about that (it helps to form a more objective view by being allowed to peer into other peoples' minds once in awhile), but it seems that most people I know aren't interested in conversations as deep as the ones I crave.

Ugh, me too. The only person I can have conversations like that with is my best friend/boyfriend. But we don't live close to each other, so all of our conversations are via AIM.

Quote from: "Jassman"I see them as decent people who attribute all of their positives to a man in the sky and all of their negatives to themselves.

This is certainly true. I did the same thing when I was a christian, myself. It gives you a very screwed up self-concept.

Quote from: "Court"Ugh, me too. The only person I can have conversations like that with is my best friend/boyfriend. But we don't live close to each other, so all of our conversations are via AIM.

Yeah, it's funny that everytime me and one of my friends hang out we start hitting all the touchy subjects *bang* *bang* one after another and no one else wants to touch our conversations with a ten foot pole. Religion, politics, morality, race/sex societal double standards... all the big ones. Then after it's all over, someone comes over and starts talking about something trivial like "favorite foods" and it seems so pointless by comparison.

It feels like about the difference between a blizzard and a sauna when you go directly from "Does God exist?" to "What pizza franchise makes the best pizza?", haha...

Still, I feel I don't have nearly enough opportunities for "real" conversation. This is where internet forums come in I guess.

I know what you mean. I feel like I'm always trying to open the bag of worms, so to speak, on these forums. I want to talk about the controversial, taboo things, the things that matter. I don't get to do it that much in real life.

The reason I choose not to debate topics like this very often is as soon as more than 3 join in it spins into oblivion and down a thousand rabbit trails, especially if christians and atheists are involved as they are coming from radically different places philosophically.  I feel that discussions about these topics are better served in a one on one setting.  It gets too confusing when multiple people are involved in the conversation.

Well, you can always just pull us back to the topic at hand. (I'm waiting for someone to do that, actually. I'd like more response on this thread.) I personally like it with more than two people, because on topics like this more than two perspectives is better. It provides for a much better discussion.

[color=#] [/color] Several years ago when I was a catholic christian, I began suffering from severe RA in my hips and knees.  I would have horrible flares that would make it very difficult for me to walk/stand/sit comfortably. During these flares I would spend a lot time in bed in pain. These times were incredibly painful, frustrating, and left me with a lot of depression.  One of the only things that would lift my spirits/make the pain less perceivable was masturbation.  And I would put myself in a guilty hell over doing it because I saw myself as a nice christian girl who shouldn't do such things.  During this painful time, I would also pray(in tongues, no less) for hours and hours to God for him to aleviate my pain/heal me and to please forgive me for my masturbation.  Well the healing never happened because as we all know, sky daddy doesn't heal even amputees.  Years later, I am still suffering from RA.  But the good that came from being bedridden like that was that I began to question what kind of "real" god would allow me to be in that type of pain and then frown on what I did to relieve my pain.  From there, I began questioning all aspects of my faith from why are there so many discrepancies in the Bible to are we really drinking Jesus's blood during communion.  I am now a nonbeliever and have never been happier.

sad.

Quote from: "iplaw"That wasn't my point.  YOU are aware of it and it's the YOU that I am concerned with not the other person.  I am not speaking of you directly just in the figurative sense in the story.  Sin begins and ends in the heart not the action was my point.

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).  Everything that makes us human, like being able to think or fantasise, is absolutely normal.

Which thoughts arrive in your mind depends on your state of mind at that moment. For example when I'm stressed and someone "pisses me off" then I'm more likely to think that "that person should have himself removed from the human genome" then when I'm relaxed. If I'd see a beautiful girl walking, it is naturally that the thoughts in my mind reflects the beauty of what I see. These thought are absolutely normal, cannot be controlled and have absolutely nothing to do with sin.

QuoteSin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily.

If you are talking about sin the Biblical sense you are wrong; Christ explicitly stated that if you committ adultery in your heart with a woman it's as if you did it in the flesh.  If you're not speaking of sin in the Biblical sense then the term only carries your meaning, there is no reason to even label it as such any more.  

QuoteWhich thoughts arrive in your mind depends on your state of mind at that moment.

Yes. And it's a non sequitor to the arguments I made previously.

QuoteThese thought are absolutely normal, cannot be controlled and have absolutely nothing to do with sin

Let me see if I can beat that dead horse yet again.  The inital thoughts are NOT WRONG the meditation upon that thought to turn it into a fanasty WOULD BE.  This is a huge difference.  

If I see a beautiful woman and I think "what a beautiful woman damn she's hot."  THAT'S NOT WRONG.  If I take it to the next step and begin to dwell on it and think about what it would be like to have sex with her that would most definitely be considered sin in the Biblical sense.

I agree with you, iplaw, as I stated somewhere in an earlier post.  Can't remember where it was, though.

Also, Tom62 wrote: Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense

If you take the biblical view of sin (and what other view is there, since atheists don't believe in sin, as such), then this is not correct.  According to the bible, sin is a rebellious act committed against God, not man, hence the bible verses "against thee, against thee only have I sinned", and "Only God can forgive sin".  I think there is a distinction though between sins committed against 'us', which we are expressely told to forgive, and those not against us, but against God, which only God can forgive.  

We must forgive sins committed against 'us'.  All other sins can only be forgiven by God.

Quote from: "Eowyn"[color=#] [/color] Several years ago when I was a catholic christian, I began suffering from severe RA in my hips and knees.  I would have horrible flares that would make it very difficult for me to walk/stand/sit comfortably. During these flares I would spend a lot time in bed in pain. These times were incredibly painful, frustrating, and left me with a lot of depression.  One of the only things that would lift my spirits/make the pain less perceivable was masturbation.  And I would put myself in a guilty hell over doing it because I saw myself as a nice christian girl who shouldn't do such things.  During this painful time, I would also pray(in tongues, no less) for hours and hours to God for him to aleviate my pain/heal me and to please forgive me for my masturbation.  Well the healing never happened because as we all know, sky daddy doesn't heal even amputees.  Years later, I am still suffering from RA.  But the good that came from being bedridden like that was that I began to question what kind of "real" god would allow me to be in that type of pain and then frown on what I did to relieve my pain.  From there, I began questioning all aspects of my faith from why are there so many discrepancies in the Bible to are we really drinking Jesus's blood during communion.  I am now a nonbeliever and have never been happier.

I'm sorry that it took such a horrific experience for you to deconvert, but I'm glad you've come over to the side of rationality. Congrats on kicking that christian guilt and despair....

Quote from: "iplaw"

QuoteSin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily.

If you are talking about sin the Biblical sense you are wrong; Christ explicitly stated that if you committ adultery in your heart with a woman it's as if you did it in the flesh.  If you're not speaking of sin in the Biblical sense then the term only carries your meaning, there is no reason to even label it as such any more.  

Iplaw's right, in the biblical sense, this statement is wrong. A better word may have been "crime." I do agree with Tom, however, that the idea of "sin" against oneself, is ridiculous nonsense. It's simply the christian morality further controlling the masses by making them feel guilty for things they either cannot control (such as thoughts) or are completely natural (such as sex and masturbation).

This is what I think, people.

On a basic level, whether you are a believer or not, is it such a bad thing to feel guilt and remorse for doing things or thinking things which Christians generally class as 'sins'?

Is it such a bad thing to feel guilt about coveting your neighbours wife?  Or stealing, or lying, or hurting other people?  I think that these general Christian guidelines for living, if adhered to in a truly heartfelt sense, would make for a better, fairer society.  The only other alternative is a moral 'free for all', where no one considers themselves accountable, except to themselves, which is a selfish and very damaging attitude to take, in my view, since everybody will have a different view as to what should be considered acceptable.  Some people wouldn't even consider other people's feelings at all, but just subscribe to the 'look after no.1' mentality.  Surely it's better to have a set of standards that apply to everybody?

Quote from: "onlyme"This is what I think, people.

On a basic level, whether you are a believer or not, is it such a bad thing to feel guilt and remorse for doing things or thinking things which Christians generally class as 'sins'?

Is it such a bad thing to feel guilt about coveting your neighbours wife?  Or stealing, or lying, or hurting other people?  I think that these general Christian guidelines for living, if adhered to in a truly heartfelt sense, would make for a better, fairer society.  The only other alternative is a moral 'free for all', where no one considers themselves accountable, except to themselves, which is a selfish and very damaging attitude to take, in my view, since everybody will have a different view as to what should be considered acceptable.  Some people wouldn't even consider other people's feelings at all, but just subscribe to the 'look after no.1' mentality.  Surely it's better to have a set of standards that apply to everybody?

Oh, are those the only parts of christian morality? I'm not saying that all parts of christian morality are bad or objectionable.
For example, the fact that the bible is so 100% against lying, while not surprising, is questionable to me. I don't think lying is always bad.
Obviously, I disagree with the sexual "morals" of christianity.
I also disagree with the intolerance the bible spouts.
And I think that humanity would do fine with its own, not-handed-down-by-a-"higher power" morality. In fact, it would probably consist of some of the same things as christian morality, especially some of the more universal principles (such as the ones you mentioned). We don't need a god to have standards, onlyme, although that is a common misperception.

The only other alternative is a moral 'free for all', where no one considers themselves accountable, except to themselves, which is a selfish and very damaging attitude to take, in my view, since everybody will have a different view as to what should be considered acceptable.
This statement is simply false. There are not only two alternatives: christianity and a "moral free for all." There are millions of people and societies worldwide that do not believe in christianity. Are they living in social dysfunction? No. In fact, studies have shown that the more secular a developed country is, the lower rates of teen pregnancy, STDs, drug use, crime, etc. it has. The correlation (although, I admit, this doesn't indicate what causes what) is that christianity and social dysfunction go hand-in-hand.

On a basic level, whether you are a believer or not, is it such a bad thing to feel guilt and remorse for doing things or thinking things which Christians generally class as 'sins'?
Yes. I think it is incredibly unhealthy, to reference what we've been discussing on this thread, to feel guilt and remores for having sex and/or masturbating.

QuoteWe don't need a god to have standards, onlyme, although that is a common misperception.

This opens up a HUGE can of worms and may demand the need for a new thread in the Philosophy section.  Though I don't know what good it will do since humans have been debating this for about a billion years.

Nice strawman, onlyme. No one is arguing whether stealing or hurting people is wrong. We are talking about thoughts being processed in one's mind. Not real actions that do actually hurt other people. But I think you know that. It seems whenever someone from a perspective that is not your own makes a good point, you go with the "ignore" method and completely misrepresent them in your reply.

Reread the entire thread. The content of your post has already been dealt with. Please try to keep up with the conversation. No one is arguing for a moral "free for all".

QuoteIt's simply the christian morality further controlling the masses by making them feel guilty for things they either cannot control (such as thoughts)

For the LAST TIME christianity does not consider INITIAL THOUGHTS as sinful anywhere in scripture, only one's which are DWELT UPON or MEDITATED UPON.  I can't believe this distinction is that hard to grasp.  There is a huge difference between having a thought and pondering the thought.  Having the thought may or may not be controllable.  Pondering or meditating on that thought is ENTIRELY within our control.

I tend to agree with you iplaw (as far as Christian morality goes, not on what is right/wrong with this subject). But do you have any Bible verses that support this claim?

Jassman and court

maybe a moral free for all is not the only possible alternative, but what then would you replace it with, if not Christian values?  Is there another set standard, recognised by the majority, which could replace it?

It's still stupid, I can't believe it's hard for you to grasp that we find a God who gives us a neural reflex on things would be so cruel as to tell us dwelling on something is a sin. You need to get off your little Christian Throne and stop acting so high and mighty. WE GET THE FUCKING CONCEPT, IT"S JUST YOUR GOD AND HIS LAWS ARE VERY STUPID AND SADISTIC!

I can't believe you're a lawyer, must be one of those infomercial ones that wear a cowboy hat. In fact, you're nickname from me will be Tex. Is that alright, Tex? No? I'm not losing sleep over it.

The current values of the majority of people. My morals are not based on Christianity yet I still share many of the same opinions regarding murder, theft, etc... Remember, most of our countries were not founded on Christian law. How many of the 10 Commandments are actually illegal in the UK?

1.  It was clearly stated that Christ was tempted in all ways as we are yet he was without sin.  Clearly he had thoughts that would have tempted him but he did not act on them, else he would have comitted sin.

2.  â€œYou have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I think its fairly easy to deduce that "looking at a woman lustfully" logically includes more than a simple innocent thought but a deliberate meditative mental action.  In fact the word used was "Blepo" which is defined as to turn the thoughts or direct the mind to a thing, to consider, contemplate, to look at, to weigh carefully, examine.

So God doesn't like you being attracted to women? How do you find a mate this day and age?

Quote from: "Jassman"The current values of the majority of people. My morals are not based on Christianity yet I still share many of the same opinions regarding murder, theft, etc... Remember, most of our countries were not founded on Christian law. How many of the 10 Commandments are actually illegal in the UK?

This argument actually tends to prove the existence of a transcendent moral ethic.

Quote from: "iplaw"

QuoteIt's simply the christian morality further controlling the masses by making them feel guilty for things they either cannot control (such as thoughts)

For the LAST TIME christianity does not consider INITIAL THOUGHTS as sinful anywhere in scripture, only one's which are DWELT UPON or MEDITATED UPON.  I can't believe this distinction is that hard to grasp.  There is a huge difference between having a thought and pondering the thought.  Having the thought may or may not be controllable.  Pondering or meditating on that thought is ENTIRELY within our control.

I do get it, iplaw. I do. Chill. The distinction isn't hard to grasp.
I wonder that you have such a control over your mind. Have you never had a hard time NOT thinking about something? Geez, sometimes if I decide not to think about something, it merely lingers in my mind longer. Sometimes I think it's healthier to dwell on things I can't act out physically, anyway, because it gets it "out of my system," so to speak. Perhaps dwelling on immoral thoughts is what keeps me from doing immoral things. I disagree that pondering on thoughts is ENTIRELY in our control. Although you can deliberately meditate on a thought, I have certainly in my life undeliberately done so.

Quote from: "Big Mac"I can't believe you're a lawyer, must be one of those infomercial ones that wear a cowboy hat. In fact, you're nickname from me will be Tex. Is that alright, Tex? No? I'm not losing sleep over it.

Bigmac, I think you got me confused with somebody else, buddy. I am not a lawyer, I am a shopfitter.   I open new stores, Asda (walmart), B and Q, Focus, Tesco, etc, and close them when necessary, doing all the work that this includes.  Hence my earlier post depicting my suspicion of the RFID chip, which is being implimented in the commercial sector more and more, as I know from first hand experience.

He was obviously talking to iplaw, not you.

ooops, sorry!

I'm a cobbler, though I don't have any cobbles to cobble with. Hahaha.

I think you're cobbled already, Bigmac

Bigmac, is the picture you display, your avatar, a picture of yourself?

If not, why not?

And why are there no pictures in your gallery?

QuoteI do get it, iplaw. I do. Chill. The distinction isn't hard to grasp.

If the distinction wasn't hard to grasp people wouldn't be making the same statements and arguments over and over and over again.  Maybe the point is just being ignored for the sake of making an expedient argument but whatever the case the distinction between the two keeps being ignored.

QuoteI wonder that you have such a control over your mind. Have you never had a hard time NOT thinking about something? Geez, sometimes if I decide not to think about something, it merely lingers in my mind longer.

According to scripture this why we discipline the mind so that we learn to control our thoughts and not the other way around.

QuoteSometimes I think it's healthier to dwell on things I can't act out physically, anyway, because it gets it "out of my system," so to speak. Perhaps dwelling on immoral thoughts is what keeps me from doing immoral things.

You can't possibly argue that dwelling on a thought makes you less likely to comitt the act dwelt upon, it's not even logical.

Quote from: "onlyme"Bigmac, is the picture you display, your avatar, a picture of yourself?

If not, why not?

And why are there no pictures in your gallery?

Dude, that is Johnny Cash. You should go shooot yourself for not knowing this. CASH IS GOD! Nothing like lighting up a joint and listening to a Boy Named Sue or Ring of Fire or Hurt and just laughing at the teletubbies. And I don't like people seeing my face, that way when the Fed's start asking questions you have no idea what I look like.

QuoteNo, I'm saying that, generally, what people tend to masturbate, or fantasise over, they tend to translate into real life. For example, raping women, or paedophilia, or whatever.

That's the funniest thing I've read in ages; thank you.

Quote from: "Big Mac"So God doesn't like you being attracted to women? How do you find a mate this day and age?

Aw, comon, Bigmac, you're better than that.  God doesn't exclude attraction to the opposite sex,-  just 'dwelling, and acting upon' members of the opposite sex which are forbidden to us, i.e, our neighbours wife.

don't agree that that's good?  Well, it depends on what side of the fence you currently sit, in my opinion.  If you're a young, free, unmarried independant, lusting after someone's wife is not such a big thing, but if you're married (even if you're not married, but with a girlfriend) would you not find it offensive if someone was 'looking at' your 'woman'- whether it be a wife (and often the mother of your children ) or your girlfriend?

Come on, we are all wont to defend what we see as 'our territory'!

Hey they can look all they want, I go home and to bed with her. I'm not a big jealousy type. Though Christians and Muslims are all about their rep and shit. Of course who are the ones who believed the world is flat and that the world is the center of the universe? I don't think it was us....it was you guys.

Quote from: "onlyme"but if you're married (even if you're not married, but with a girlfriend) would you not find it offensive if someone was 'looking at' your 'woman'- whether it be a wife (and often the mother of your children ) or your girlfriend?

There are directions that we shouldn't be allowed to look? Have fun at the airport, buddy. You look at your feet. I'm going to be looking at my fellow humans.

Quote from: "iplaw"...Christ explicitly stated that if you committ adultery in your heart with a woman it's as if you did it in the flesh.  

I would rather my husband lust after another woman and maybe indulge in a little fantasy than actually have sex with her in the flesh.  The unforgivable aspect would be the flesh and not the fantasy.

How are the lusting and the act equal?  (Hint:  the answer is not "because it says so in the bible".)

Quote from: "iplaw"According to scripture this why we discipline the mind so that we master our thoughts and not the other way around.

This sounds like the Hindu practice of mind/body control.  And Hinduism is older than Christianity.

Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism)

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "onlyme"Bigmac, is the picture you display, your avatar, a picture of yourself?

If not, why not?

And why are there no pictures in your gallery?

Dude, that is Johnny Cash. You should go shooot yourself for not knowing this. CASH IS GOD! Nothing like lighting up a joint and listening to a Boy Named Sue or Ring of Fire or Hurt and just laughing at the teletubbies. And I don't like people seeing my face, that way when the Fed's start asking questions you have no idea what I look like.

Ok, forgive my stupidity,  Johnny Cash is great.  Boy named Sue is geat.  How come I didn't recognise that? As I said before, I'm not the sharpest tool in the box.  Ha ha.

Hey, ......

why are there no pictures in your gallery?

Quote from: "Big Mac"And I don't like people seeing my face, that way when the Fed's start asking questions you have no idea what I look like.

That should explain it.

Quote from: "Big Mac"And I don't like people seeing my face, that way when the Fed's start asking questions you have no idea what I look like.

Sound reasoning.  




We need to start a separate forum called Miscellaneous Questions, so that when people have these questions they don't interrupt a serious topic of conversation to ask them.   (You know who you are.)

Laetus, what do you think?

Quote from: "MommaSquid"

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Big Mac"And I don't like people seeing my face, that way when the Fed's start asking questions you have no idea what I look like.

Sound reasoning.  




We need to start a separate forum called Miscellaneous Questions, so that when people have these questions they don't interrupt a serious topic of conversation to ask them.   (You know who you are.)

Laetus, what do you think?

If I wasn't so paranoid, I would think you are referring to me, there, mommasquid.

She was....

It would be more tidy if off topic questions were either in a special thread (the person's intro thread would work)...or...through a private message.

QuoteI would rather my husband lust after another woman and maybe indulge in a little fantasy than actually have sex with her in the flesh. The unforgivable aspect would be the flesh and not the fantasy.

And what I am telling you is that without the fantasy first the act itself will never take place.  They are not mutally exclusive events.  

QuoteThis sounds like the Hindu practice of mind/body control. And Hinduism is older than Christianity.

I love how atheists point to things like this and assume the teaching was borrowed as opposed to seeing the transcendency of an objective moral ethic.  

QuoteHow are the lusting and the act equal?

Serenity now...serenity now...

Okay that's better, WHERE did I make that argument? NOWHERE!!!

Tell me where this statement is flawed:

Ideas precede actions  

No one cheats on their spouse without formulating the idea in their mind first.

Quote from: "onlyme"Come on, we are all wont to defend what we see as 'our territory'!

I'm so offended by this remark, I'm speechless. I keep telling myself you're joking, but then I see you wrote this above it:

Quote from: "onlyme"would you not find it offensive if someone was 'looking at' your 'woman'

in all sincerity. "Your" woman...Nice to know.

I was getting ready to warn him about that comment and your impending reaction when I read it.  I just let him step in it though.

Quote from: "iplaw"Tell me where this statement is flawed:

Ideas precede actions  

No one cheats on their spouse without formulating the idea in their mind first.

I don't know about that. I'm sure plenty of people have had sex, cheated, etc. without really thinking it through first. Sometimes, things just happen, especially when it comes to sex.

Ideas precede actions, but not all ideas lead to actions. In fact, most ideas (even "immoral" ones) don't lead to action. So, if you trust yourself enough not to physically act out your fantasies (or, if you know you wouldn't actually want to physically act our your fantasies, like cheating on a spouse/partner), what's wrong with them?

Quote from: "iplaw"I was getting ready to warn him about that comment and your impending reaction when I read it.  I just let him step in it though.

Sweet. I knew I liked you.

QuoteI'm sure plenty of people have had sex, cheated, etc. without really thinking it through first.

Thinking it through was not my assertion, as in think about consequences and outcomes.  You never cheat without thinking or "wanting" to do the act first.  No one has sex without having the thought "I want sex" first, we aren't robots.

QuoteIdeas precede actions, but not all ideas lead to actions.

The statement I made is not an ad hoc argument.  I don't care about actions which don't lead to results.  I care about the fact that results happen only after deliberate thought.  To analogize, the act is a chicken, the egg an idea, but the mind is the incubator that allows the egg to turn into a chicken.  The eggs won't ever turn into chickens if not incubated.  

QuoteIn fact, most ideas (even "immoral" ones) don't lead to action.

There is no way to quantify the veracity of this statement but my statement that ideas precede actions is undeniable, it happens 100% of the time.

QuoteSo, if you trust yourself enough not to physically act out your fantasies (or, if you know you wouldn't actually want to physically act our your fantasies, like cheating on a spouse/partner), what's wrong with them?

I bet the majority of people who cheat thought they had it under control before it happend too.  

It comes down to whether you are willing to play games with your thoughts instead of controlling your mind.  Yeah, you may get away with having fantasies without cheating every time, granted, but there is the real possibility that you may finally act on that fantasy tiring of the lack of the physical experience.

When I said 'your woman' I'm merely trying to reflect society in general, to cater for both parties, both men and women.  As I said before, in my experience from talking to women, they DO like a strong man who is able to protect and defend them.  Maybe this doesn't apply to the 'modern' woman, I don't know.


Women.  Strange creatures.  Just when we think we are on the brink of trying to understand them, they move the goalposts.  

I don't claim to speak on behalf of women.   In contrast, I welcome input from women, who can enlighten me as to what women really do expect from men in this day and age.

How many women here like the thought of their husbands or boyfriends thinking of other women when the have sex?

Quote from: "iplaw"How many women here like the thought of their husbands or boyfriends thinking of other women when the have sex?

Hey, if I don't know about it, it can't hurt me. Besides, that simply means I am obviously not working hard enough. If he can think about someone else while in bed with me, then shit. I need to fix something.  

Quote from: "onlyme"When I said 'your woman' I'm merely trying to reflect society in general, to cater for both parties, both men and women.  As I said before, in my experience from talking to women, they DO like a strong man who is able to protect and defend them.  Maybe this doesn't apply to the 'modern' woman, I don't know.


Women.  Strange creatures.  Just when we think we are on the brink of trying to understand them, they move the goalposts.  

I don't claim to speak on behalf of women.   In contrast, I welcome input from women, who can enlighten me as to what women really do expect from men in this day and age.

Explain it away all you want, onlyme. If you would not think of women as a different species, you'd understand them better.

iplaw

exactly

Look, mate, if you want to email me or PM me, you can click on my profile and find the information there to contact me.  I don't think that anyone on an atheist forum would object to that, do you, unless ?

Anyway- my personal email address is stephenhwrth@yahoo.co.uk.    If you wish to contact me, I tell you I will be pleased to hear from you, and swap ideas.

Quote from: "Court"

Quote from: "MommaSquid"Maybe we should split this topic again.

Probably, but I'm running out of ideas for titles...

I told my boyfriend that I was told I have a mechanical, unpleasant position on relationships and he laughed.
Usually, I get labeled cynical and bitter, so I don't find it too unsurprising, I guess.

Split:

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/fpost2170.html#2170 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/fpost2170.html#2170)

Quote from: "JNTB"I love the "unpure thoughts" argument in which our thoughts are sinful. We are not in control of our thoughts, only our actions. Hang with me on this one ... if we were in control of our thoughts, wouldn't we have to think about the subject we wanted to control? Wouldn't we have to systematically examine every thought and determine its purity and then discard the unpure thoughts and maintain the pure thoughts? Wouldn't that require us to think about the subject, which itself is unpure. So, logically, it is absolutely impossible to avoid impure thought.
quote]

the thoughts about our thoughts might not be pure, which means the thoughts we have about the thoughts about our thoughts might also be impure...deep...

and why, if everything "God" made is good then are some aspects of it bad,  I mean wouldn' that be an oxymoron?

Topic split again:

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/ftopic482.html (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/ftopic482.html)