The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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...
Duncan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,999 times Debate No: 35324
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the two passages that are often used as proof that masturbation is wrong, are usually misinterpreted.

one is onan. God said to onan, to impregnate his deceased brother's wife. instead, onan pull out, and spilled his seed on the ground. many argue that what was wrong here is that he spilled his seed, it went to unproductive use etc, that masturbation is likewise a sin. however, it's pretty clear that God was mad because he didnt follow his command to impregnate her.

the other is in Matthew. Jesus says something to the effect of 'whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart". this makes some argue that if you even lust after a woman, which is usually the case with masturbation, you sin. the problem, is that the original word for "lust" is the same word, teated the same, as the word "covet". no one can really take the ten commandment bans on coveting your neighbor's wife or things, in too literal a sense. covet means something indordinate, not something like just wanting or admiring your neighbor's wife and things. covet means "best understood as forbidding fixing one"s desire upon obtaining something that is not rightfully one"s own". here is more on the use of covet and lust.

http://www.jasonstaples.com...

this fits my original interpetation of the verse "you would if you could". would you sleep with a man's wife if you could? then youve done the sin in your heart, even if you didnt actually do it. it also highlights that what's wrong here is unlawful marriage coveting. notice he didn't say the person commits fornication, or "unlawful sex". Jesus is probably stressing coveting a man's wife, not just lustful thoughts in general, and not even necessarily unmarried women.
Duncan

Con

You again? Remember me from the Tiller debates? Ok, this'll be fun. These are not the sections I would use as proof against masturbation from the bible. I cannot recall the section's proper line or location, but for the next round I will have found it, but it refers to the rules by which to live. Leaving the town for the whole day was the punishment for masturbation (the term used was literally wet dream). If you do not think wet dream refers to masturbation, then I will return to your sections. To covet thy neighbour's wife and his belongings are separate commandments, so covetting the wife is lusting for her (usually in the form of masturbation). On the subject of Onan, if God did want him to impregnate his wife, he would have just told him to try again, or do a Samson on his and grant him newfound power in a certain body part (not his hair).

My final point until you return fire is on your interpretation of the bible. True, the bible cannot be taken seriously, and must be interpreted if believed at all, but the head interpreter is whichever Pope currently resides on the Holy See. So since the Catholic Church (and so are all the others) is against masturbation, that is the official interpretation. You can argue againts that answer, but there are too many attacks on sexual activity not between a man and a woman for the aforementioned sections listed by you.

I await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"I cannot recall the section's proper line or location, but for the next round I will have found it, but it refers to the rules by which to live. Leaving the town for the whole day was the punishment for masturbation (the term used was literally wet dream). If you do not think wet dream refers to masturbation, then I will return to your sections.

you're referring to something the bible says? i'm sure it doesn't say anything about 'wet dreams', and i've never heard anything about leaving town etc. you need to cite and be more specific.

"To covet thy neighbour's wife and his belongings are separate commandments, so covetting the wife is lusting for her (usually in the form of masturbation).

covet means more than just desiring. lusting in the more generic term is merely admiring another's property, not coveting. covet is an indordinate unhealthy attachment, and a "you would if you could" in terms of the Matthew verse.

"On the subject of Onan, if God did want him to impregnate his wife, he would have just told him to try again, or do a Samson on his and grant him newfound power in a certain body part (not his hair).

God strikes people dead for not heeding his commands all the time. we have no reason to think he'd have "just told him to try again". in fact, this doesn't sound like the God from the bible, as much as he strikes people dead.

i also notice with this onan point and the covet point, you basically contradict yourself, given you said you wouldnt use those passages to argue against masturbation, but then go on later to argue how you would use them that way.

"My final point until you return fire is on your interpretation of the bible. True, the bible cannot be taken seriously, and must be interpreted if believed at all, but the head interpreter is whichever Pope currently resides on the Holy See. So since the Catholic Church (and so are all the others) is against masturbation, that is the official interpretation. You can argue againts that answer, but there are too many attacks on sexual activity not between a man and a woman for the aforementioned sections listed by you.

there's no reason we have to take the catholic church as the final arbiter of faith and morals. i think the catholic church has contradicted itself, on the points of limbo, and whether there is salvation possible for non catholics. sure, these can be argued against plausibly, and perhaps we should heed that church's teachings as final. but i don't see why that's necessarily the case, and seems that is probably not the case.
and at the end of the day, i'm arguing about what the bible teaches on its own merit. that means we dont look to the catholic church, just what the bible says. and even if we did look to the CC, that doesn't mean the bible says anything about masturbation, just that the CC does... but the point of the debate is regarding the bible, not CC teaching.
Duncan

Con

Good news and bad news. While I couldn't find the wet dream mentioned, (haven't read the bible in 4 years) I did find Leviticus 15, which contains instructions for Unclean Bodily Discharges. While a lot of the section is largely about hygiene, paragraph 14 and 15 involve a sacrifice for the sin of bodily discharge. There. An outright description of wasteful ejaculation as unclean and sinful.

I admit, you can ignore the Catholic Churches teachings, and you can overlook that you said "God strikes people dead for not heeding his commands all the time" even though there are dozens of times in the bible where he doesn't, including where Moses says that he cannot convince the Pharoah to release the Jews, and in return for questioning him, God gives him a magic staff. (Exodus 4) and later on, Moses complains again (Exodus 6) and the bipolar Lord lets it slide. And then in Exodus 14, he not only allows some one to challene him, he straight up forces the Pharoah to give chase after deciding to release the Israelites "I will make him stubborn, and he shall pursue you, and my victory over the king and his army will bring me honour".

Look, my whole point here is that the bible is completely unreliable, and a passage's interpretation can only be determined when the text is so definitive. The answer for masturbation is temporary exile, a bath, not being allowed to touch anything, and then two pigeons as a SIN offering and a burnt offering. Throw out all the rest, the bible just taught that masturbation is a sin.

Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

so i take it that what you've said up till this point, since you can't back it up, has been pretty much a waste of time.

id say as to your leviticus verse, 'unusual discharge' could refer to many things, wet dreams or other health problems, and doesn't necessarily include masturbation. 'unusual' connotes something that defies lay man understanding, very reasonably perhaps. add to that that the bible is generally pro male, we shouldnt assume that the verse is referring to masturbation.
Duncan

Con

No, the paragraphs I mentioned were taken from the middle of the section. The opening paragraph refers to whether or not it was on purpose, but both purposefully and accidental are still classed as sin. It is focused on sexual fluids, and the punishment for any action in the section is to give a sin offering. The reason I must ignore my previous statements is because I promised to try and find the paragraph I mentioned earlier. I never found it, but I did find this section. I had to re-read up to Leviticus again for this debate, but I know in a few weeks time, you'll start this debate again like it never happened. I will say it once more. Masturbation is a controlled sexual bodily discharge. According to Leviticus, the sinner must give two offerings, one a sin offering and one a burnt offering, both pigeons or doves, to the priest, who then has a pigeon sandwich.

This debate is over, but I'm sure we'll meet again,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
@dairygirl4u2c

Hey, you've got to capitalise, because you'll get points for spelling and grammar. Don't be lazy. People get voted down for that, you know. You've got to capitalise!
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i mean, i am arguing the pro position in the 'masturbation is a sin' threads that i recently started.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i admit you may have beaten me in the masturbation debate duncan. i am arguing the pro postion for other reasons though, and not including your points.

i do not admit anything in regards to the tiller debate. i gave a rational response, with two year old hypotheticals invovled that you nor anyone else could or would address. plus a general lack of responsiveness to points, by you and the others. it was, at best, emotional responses to my well formed reason, and logic. it ain't politically popular, my stance on that issue, but it's irrefutable. (minus some concessions that vigilantism has some issues with it, but that's about it)
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
@Ragnar

Thanks for your clarification, but I still don't get it. :/
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
I like the clarity of the NASB in Lev 15:16-18
16 "Now if a man has a seminal emission, he shall bathe all his body in water and be unclean until evening. 17 As for any garment or any leather on which there is seminal emission, it shall be washed with water and be unclean until evening. 18 If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening.
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
@dairygirl4u2c
You might want to change your profile pic for this topic.

with that said, If you need someone to debate you on this I would love to tackle the subject.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
@Sweetbreeze: It is usually self fondling of the swimsuit area, with the goal of climax.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
Why do people always talk about masturbation, but I don't know what it means/is?!
Posted by tkubok 3 years ago
tkubok
So masterbating to your wife is not a sin, then, is it?
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 3 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
I love how the instigator's picture is a hand.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
dairygirl4u2cDuncanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both were terrible. I'd have given arguments to Con if s/he had actually quoted Lev 15, as Pro failed to refute the claim that it referred to masturbation. However, based on a reading of the debate it's impossible to tell what Lev 15 actually says, so the argument is moot.
Vote Placed by Bordenkircher 3 years ago
Bordenkircher
dairygirl4u2cDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the con in this argument, but his understanding of how the Bible works was false. And a wet dream is not masturbation. Although I agree with his views and Pro was unable to sway me to his side, Con didn't make too good of an argument.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
dairygirl4u2cDuncanTied
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: It was hard to give points to anyone. This was less like a debate and most resembled 2 stoners having a stream of consciousness discussion over their 4th joint. Little research was evident, and little understanding. Con gets argument point for bringing up Lev 15, but just barely.