Mutual Masturbation Within Marriage - A Debate I'm Having

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Slappo' date='27 March 2010 - 03:31 AM' timestamp='1269678662' post='2081203']

Edit: And I think in Christian prudence this has to be the last time I view this thread. Reading and discussing such topics is very difficult when only 64 days from marriage. I.E., I'm impatient to practice what I preach [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Only 64 days left?!! That's awesome Slappo! Your fiancee is beautiful--it's easy to see why this discussion might be difficult for you.

BTW--We want pictures! We can't be there to celebrate with you, so, I, at least, would love to see your future wife in her wedding gown (and veil!) And, to see you looking so happy! (I love seeing a happy groom, as opposed to the grooms in many weddings who look like they are looking for the closest escape.)

Are you going on a honeymoon? (We KNOW you're HAVING a honeymoon--even if you don't go someplace special.) LOL

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Raphael' date='27 March 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1269727399' post='2081569']
How eloquently you call me a Pharisee!

Situational ethics is not the same as following the spirit of the law rather than just the letter. The spirit of the law is the honor of God. The letter of the law did not foresee that honoring God might be achieved through feeding a starving person.

The problem with situational ethics is not that it says the more loving option is the one to take. That is completely true. The problem is that it uses a fluffy, subjective definition of what love is. Its definition is devoid of the commandments, which Christ said must be followed by one who wishes to love God.

So, as a summary, your point is not valid because:

1. Following the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law is still following the law and therefore loving.
2. The law you are referring to is the Mosaic Law, which is not part of "the Commandments" Christ said we must follow in loving Him.
3. The Catholic Church does not invoke the rabbinical authority as its power, but the authority of Christ.

God bless,

Micah

[/quote]

Micah--For once, we may agree with each other, at least a little. :-> I will probably express my views in different words, but we may come out to at least close to the same place.

I don't see the choice as between "situational ethics" and "follow the letter of the law, or you are not a good Christian."

I see another alternative. Christ sets a "bar," a standard that Christ would like us all to follow.

However, ALL of us fall short of the standard, even the most dogmatic Catholic on this phorum.

So, we ask God for forgiveness, and he gives us forgiveness (even though we don't deserve it), along with the proviso to "sin no more."

A good example of Jesus showing mercy is the woman about to be stoned for adultery. (I've always wondered why the man wasn't stoned, too, but that isn't germane to this discussion.) Jesus knew what the law was. But, he cautioned those about to throw stones against the sin of self-righteousness, and let the woman go, with the admonition to sin no more.

Jesus, in this example, did not support adultery--he maintained his standard of being against it. But, he decided to show mercy, instead of punishing the woman.

When I show mercy or love to someone, rather than saying, "Follow the rules, or else" it's a statement of humility on my part, admitting that I fall short all the time. But, we all fall short in different ways.

So, each of us, in our relationship with God, has to work out "the standard" for our own lives, and the extent and the situations in which we show love to those who fall short of our standards, rather than punishing or shunning the person. If Christ, who was perfect, could humble himself, how much more should we humble ourselves and be honest that, despite our standards, we fall short. But, because we are different people, prone to different sins, we sometimes interpret the law differently--that's why we need to keep God involved, to keep us from straying too far from what he wants.

The tightrope between "having standards" and committing the sin of self-righteousness can be an excruciatingly hard balance at times. And, it DOES vary from situation to situation. That does not make it "situational ethics" only a reflection that life itself is very different for different people, and even for ourselves at different times in our lives. Showing love in the face of the law is NOT situational ethics, as you said above.

I try to show love by giving a person "the benefit of the doubt" because there are so many things I don't understand. I also try to stay away from dogmatism, because, if we are living a Godly life, it shows in everything we do, without having to preach. When I don't "preach" I am showing my humility.

I'm not a theologian, only a person who is trying her best to understand what God wants from her in the face of some very difficult circumstances. So, don't be surprised if I don't reply to theological arguments. What I need from God, and from other Christians, right now is not theology, but mercy and love. Pray for me, if you have time.

Edited March 29, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm glad you mentioned Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. I especially love that story.
"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." I don't think there's a better way to sum up the mercy of God than in that line. We are commanded to give up sin, but promised forgiveness for what we have done. Powerful verse.
The woman in the story doesn't deserve mercy. It wouldn't be mercy if she deserved it. None of us can every deserve what God offers... but he offers anyway. We just have to take Him up on the offer.


Anyway, sorry about the tangent. I've been wanting to write about that for a while now.

[SNJM]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 March 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1269899481' post='2082898']
I'm glad you mentioned Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. I especially love that story.
"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." I don't think there's a better way to sum up the mercy of God than in that line. We are commanded to give up sin, but promised forgiveness for what we have done. Powerful verse.
The woman in the story doesn't deserve mercy. It wouldn't be mercy if she deserved it. None of us can every deserve what God offers... but he offers anyway. We just have to take Him up on the offer.


Anyway, sorry about the tangent. I've been wanting to write about that for a while now.
[/quote]

good post

[Groo the Wanderer]

Can we please put an end to this thread? For crying out loud seven pages of this? How much is there really to debate that has not been already stated rehashed and restated?

I am just weary of seeing the thread title featured on the home page every time someone replies. I used to send my students here to see what charitable and honest debate is all about. Now I am afraid to send anyone here out of fear they will fixate on threads like these for cheap titillation.

Let it die folks, let it die.

[Miss Hepburn]

Warning bad image below - read in caution:

I know I'm new here and all ---but shouldn't there be a separate area for topics like
this rather than this general Debate area??

I will forcibly, with God's help, get the image that came into my mind just reading the Topic Title.

I'm truly offended.

It's not that hard to have a Marriage Discussion area ----I would never be going there- I'll tell you THAT!

My opinion - the moderators should have edited the "m" word. I don't need to be seeing that as I don't need to be having a tortured dog flashed with no warning on a news report. ( See? Try getting that image out of your head now.)
I offended someone to make my point.
Thus the warning at the top. Sorry.

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/ohno.gif[/img] Miss Hepburn

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Miss Hepburn' date='04 April 2010 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1270398325' post='2086611']
Warning bad image below - read in caution:

I know I'm new here and all ---but shouldn't there be a separate area for topics like
this rather than this general Debate area??

I will forcibly, with God's help, get the image that came into my mind just reading the Topic Title.

I'm truly offended.

It's not that hard to have a Marriage Discussion area ----I would never be going there- I'll tell you THAT!

My opinion - the moderators should have edited the "m" word. I don't need to be seeing that as I don't need to be having a tortured dog flashed with no warning on a news report. ( See? Try getting that image out of your head now.)
I offended someone to make my point.
Thus the warning at the top. Sorry.

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/ohno.gif[/img] Miss Hepburn
[/quote]
On Phatmass it's understood that sometimes mature topics will be discussed, and if someone doesn't have the maturity for such a topic, or if it may lead them to an occasion of sin, then they're expected to avoid those threads.

[Miss Hepburn]

Pretty hard to avoid in a Topic in General Debate?
Aren't there 15 year old girls here? My daughter wouldn't be coming here any longer
if I saw that topic heading wasn't edited or modified.

Separate Marriage section was all I was suggesting.

Here's my next topic heading, see what you think -should this be modified by a
moderator on a Christian Forum?
"I just kicked my dog in the head and his eye is hanging out - is that a sin?" I mean come on...
as a heading?

It has nothing to do with maturity - it's common sense to me --some topic headings could be edited.
As in : "I'm having a marriage question - Sexual issue..." What's wrong w/ that?
Not: "Is it ok to ____ my partner up the ____ after performing ____?" Words left in as they were
in the topic of discussion.
Not as a topic heading for anyone to see!!

Come on, sisters anyone with me here?
Just a separate section so needed questions could be asked by married couples.

Is that so wrong?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Miss Hepburn' date='04 April 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1270400762' post='2086640']
Pretty hard to avoid in a Topic in General Debate?
Aren't there 15 year old girls here? My daughter wouldn't be coming here any longer
if I saw that topic heading wasn't edited or modified.

Separate Marriage section was all I was suggesting.

Here's my next topic heading, see what you think -should this be modified by a
moderator on a Christian Forum?
"I just kicked my dog in the head and his eye is hanging out - is that a sin?" I mean come on...
as a heading?

It has nothing to do with maturity - it's common sense to me --some topic headings could be edited.
As in : "I'm having a marriage question - Sexual issue..." What's wrong w/ that?
Not: "Is it ok to ____ my partner up the ____ after performing ____?" Words left in as they were
in the topic of discussion.
Not as a topic heading for anyone to see!!

Come on, sisters anyone with me here?
Just a separate section so needed questions could be asked by married couples.

Is that so wrong?
[/quote]
Our moderators follow certain guidelines which can be found on [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules"]this link[/url]. If you think that something violates these guidelines, you're free to use the report button, and a moderator will determine whether or not to edit the post in question. These guidelines come straight from the forum administrator. You're free to bring your concerns to the moderators or to Dust.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

While certain words are, regrettably, prone to giving us bad mental images, the topics nonetheless need to be addressed and we can't shrink from the task. If anything, the word in the title warns would-be readers not to go further if they feel they will be scandalized.

"Masturbation" is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If the bishops feel the need to address it and to use the term, so should we.

[Miss Hepburn]

Hi,
Btw, I haven't read one word on this thread - the "mm" was enough for me!
I would like to repeat - all I was asking about was a separate area called Marriage Questions.
Well, and actually modifying titles, wasn't I? Ha!

I'm dropping it. I'm in the minority, you all win.

I don't want to be some activist here to change how things are run.
I'll toughen up, hoping some youngster here isn't also shocked.

I'm cancellng any notificaton of replies to this thread...carry on!

Sorry I'm so sensitive.
Miss Hepburn

[homeschoolmom]

Annnnnnnd we are done. I can't see this being any sort of useful conversation anymore.