The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
blackkid
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Masturbation is not a sin

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
blackkid
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,470 times Debate No: 60314
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

I argue that Masturbation is not a biblical conflict. Since this is a theological discussion, both non-christians and Christianscan debate as long as they stay within the line of the Bible and not drift to other topics

First round acceptance
blackkid

Con

Okidoke! :D
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

No where in the Bible does it say that Masturbation is a sin. It's not found anywhere in the Torah and no where did Jesus mention it. logically, since Jesus wanted to do the will of his father, he would have obeyed his Torah, but since masturbation isn't even mentioned,he cannot condemn it as sin. Now you can argue " well Paul said.. " Paul is no exception, he must also teach from the Torah and derive his conclusions centered on Christ. I will now give possible scriptures in which people could use to argue that masturbation is a sin and explain why they do not condemn masturbation.

1. The sin of Onan - Some say that Onan was struck dead for masturbating, the context doesn't support that. Gen. 38:7-10

"7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.

8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

9 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.

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

His sin was rebellion, not the fact that he masturbated.

2. The most often quoted verse is Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." It is then concluded that since masturbation invovles sexual fantasies, you are "looking at a woman lustfully" and therefore sinning. Let's examine this in it's full context:

Matt. 5:27-30

"27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery. 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully [epithyme!3;] has already committed adultery with her in his heart [kardia. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

In Greek, the word "epithyme!3;" comes from two root words. 1. is epi which means upon 2. is thymos which means passion. In other words, this means "on passion." According to Strong's Lexicon, it means "to set the heart upon" (1). Kardia is the will, thoughts, feelings, etc. of the human being. Jesus was essentially saying that if you act upon your feelings to get what you want when it isn't yours, you are already sinnning and you should therefore find the root of the problem. Sexual fantasies alone are not sinful.

Thoughts:

1. Some say that this is a fleshly desire and is therefore sinful, this isn't a good argument as we do many things that are fleshly (eating, sleeping, getting a backrub, etc.) Some also say that having sexual fantasies other than marriage is sinful, however no where in Scripture does it say that. Sex is between a man and a woman, but ONLY sexual fantasies aren't what is forbidden.

2. David lusted after Bathsheba and was punished not for having desires, but for acting upon them.

2 Samuel 12:7-10

"7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointedyou king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’"

I will respond to any Scriptures and arguements my opponent brings forth.

Looking forward for next round.

Sources:

1. http://studybible.info...;
blackkid

Con

Masturbation is considered a sin in Catholicism.

"Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action" (CCC# 2352). Whatever the motive, solitary sex in itself contradicts the meaning of human sexuality, which is meant by God to be shared between a man and a woman in marriage."

(http://catholiceducation.org...)

The Catechism on Chastity:

"By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139"

(http://www.vatican.va...)

Cited twice masturbation is a sin in Catholic teachings based on the fact that it goes against the purpose of sex. As this is a Christian teaching it is difficult to discern whether or not the official doctrine is sufficient or if I need to produce some element of debate based on my own thoughts versus simply showing for this as the base truth of the religion.
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

I don't believe Catholicism is biblical, but that's for another discussion. I see a few issues.

1. Catholicism has no biblical basis for its beliefs

2. You presented the beliefs of catholics, you did not prove from Scripture that masturbation is sin

3. the topic is weather not masturbation is a sin in the Bible, not according to Catholic tradition.

I rest my case
blackkid

Con

1. Catholicism actually uses the Sixth Commandment (as per sources) for the basis of their argument presenting that adultery is any form of inconsistent or inappropriate sexual behavior as an all encompassing command versus attempting to segment it as you have relating to masturbation as an action, lust as a thought, and the presence of what you consider to be appropriate sexual interaction (Despite the Bible openly stating one-man to one-woman and David [and all the kings for that matter] having many concubines).

"Genesis 2:22-24
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Not all of what is written within the Bible is necessarily backed by God though it may be an accurate reflection of what was at the time therefore books like the Song of Solomon which is essentially erotic poetry may not have been appropriate or sanctified despite it's inclusion in the holy book.

2. As Catholicism expands (as you did) on the Sixth Commandment I see no reason to further expand upon the Sixth Commandment as it does so adequately.

3. As Catholicism is using the Bible for backing it is inherently questionable of whether it can be denied based on the source being Catholic itself. It's exclusionary and is being invalidated based on basically not being what you wanted to talk about.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

1.that doesn't address the verses i gave regarding masturbation. Adultery is havingsex w ith another person's wife or husband. This obviously cannot happen to someone who fantasizes of another. We weren't discussing the beliefs of catholic , we are debating whether or not masturbation is a sin from the Bible.

This doesn't show that masturbation is a sin.

2. Still doesn't prove masturbation is a sin.

3. Okay? Well you haven't shown biblically how masturbation is a sin through hermeneutics.
blackkid

Con

i. Catholicism is an adequate source for the discussion. There is no reason that they would not be an authority throughout the entirety of the languages used whether it be Hebrew, Greek, or English. Con requests a reason why The Church, the oldest maintained standing of major power in Christianity, is not sufficient or meets your requirements. It definitively states, based on the 6th commandment, the matter of masturbation and does not discuss Onanism, which I would propose is a non-sequitur to the point anyway as it is your wish to assert Onanism as my position versus allowing me the use of the entire Bible.

ii. Baseless claim.

iii. Baseless claim.

You're refusing a viable source and authority without an actual reason. Con calls to question another claim:

"Adultery is having sex with another person's wife or husband. This obviously cannot happen to someone who fantasizes of another." by asking for the actual representation of this verse in argument one as written ""27 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery. 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully [epithyme!3;] has already committed adultery with her in his heart [kardia. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." as Pro failed to actually source this.

Please provide the Greek translation you claim to derive from and explain why we should hop languages considering if we do indeed swap from language to language and translation to translation we are essentially arguing in ambiguity.

I have in Greek w/ Translation this source (http://www.bible-researcher.com...) which does not support your translation of the scenario which, if you cannot show for, may indeed further extend the condemnation of masturbation through inherent coupling lust when using your word focus alone. As per agreed upon debate guidelines if you wish to avoid talking on lust and focus only masturbation disconnecting the two I completely understand and you may refuse this request for clarity relating to language barriers. You need not feel obligated to answer for the second claim.
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

http://www.blueletterbible.org...

I got this from the Textus Receptus

Like I said, you failed to address my points listed above. From what we have seen, it's clear that masturbation is not a sin.

I rest my case.
blackkid

Con

You have yet to explain why my appeal to Catholicism, which is Christianity, is "inappropriate" and how it fails to use The Holy Bible. Your personal rejection of the source is unsupported and biased which does not hold.

Using Strong's dictionary (which is your source, now linked to the word) [http://www.blbclassic.org...]

[ epithyme!3;

1. to turn upon a thing

2. to have a desire for, long for, to desire

3. to lust after, covet of those who seek things forbidden ]

[ Kardia

the heart

1. that organ in the animal body which is the centre of the circulation of the blood, and hence was regarded as the seat of physical life.

2. denotes the centre of all physical and spiritual life

A. the vigour and sense of physical life, the centre and seat of spiritual life, the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavours

B. of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence

C. of the will and character

D. of the soul so far as it is affected and stirred in a bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires, appetites, passions

1. of the middle or central or inmost part of anything, even though inanimate ]

"In Greek, the word "epithyme!3;" comes from two root words. 1. is epi which means upon 2. is thymos which means passion. In other words, this means "on passion." According to Strong's Lexicon, it means "to set the heart upon" (1). Kardia is the will, thoughts, feelings, etc. of the human being. Jesus was essentially saying that if you act upon your feelings to get what you want when it isn't yours, you are already sinnning and you should therefore find the root of the problem. Sexual fantasies alone are not sinful."

Looking at these two definitions I would say that it is more likely that lust / coveting is less behavioral (therefore undermining the idea of "acting upon" versus "holding or having" the emotional impulses) and more cognitive. I'm pretty sure this would suggest that sexual fantasies are actually sinful since coveting is likened to lust in that terminology and it is the best definition relating specifically for things you should not have.

Well, that concludes this debate as this is the final round!
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
Yep, pretty much Shadow-Dragon. That's one of the reasons. I really have no idea how he hoped to beat this with just Onanism.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Well, it is a sinful act because it is coveting something that one does not have. That is one of the ten commandments. Sorry, it's a sin.
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
Lol well, I can make you my judge :-)
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
aw, i really wanted to vote on this :(
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
You can accept it now
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
Unless he wants me to debate him at the same time lol
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
No just go head, ill debate him after you if that's ok with him
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
Should I just back out?
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
someone already beat me to it, but I'll beat you after this is done
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
My bad Wylted, I meant to say that you can debate it even if you're not a believer, but you have to only stay on topic
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Truth_seekerblackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - tied. Neither debater gave reason to award points to one over the other. S&G - Tied. Both made mistake in spelling & grammar and therefore balance out. Arguments - Con. Pro horribly failed to maintain his BOP. Not only did he spend nearly 3 rounds presenting baseless assertions, but then also failed due to these responses to maintain his burden in the face of the challenges presented by Con in his own rebuttals and counter-arguments. For this, Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. This is due to the numerous sources utilized by Con to strengthen his arguments, vs. the very minimal sources used by Pro.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
Truth_seekerblackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Some observations 1. Catholicism seems irrelevant because we are talking about the Bible here, 2. The Greek argument was really confusing. 3. Both parties seemed to avoid answering their opponents arguments completely. I gave convincing arguments to Con because Pro just gave one-liner responses a lot. I would have liked to see more analysis in a debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Truth_seekerblackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con get's S&G for Pro's Round 4 errors that he has made. Sources to Con due to the fact that he offered a varriaty of sources from websites links to a multitude of Biblical verses. Arguments also to Con as Pro never really attempted to refute Con's Catholicism arguments. Though he may not believe Catholicism has any Biblical basing he sill should have refuted the argument, but did not effectively do so. Con also took the epi argument that Pro had brought up and actually turned it into his favor which helps him out significantly. Pro gets Conduct due to Con bringing up new arguments in the last round which is really just unethical.