₦airaland Forum

Mrkelvyn08: Was a goal afta all... Sometimes, different angles matter a lot.IT ... http:///p43NWxIZ

IS MASTURBATION A SIN?


Is masturbation a sin? Whoever has never had a “lustful thought”, be the first to say yes. How do we deal with such thoughts? In the light of Matt. 5:28, believers seem to be walking a tight rope everyday of their lives. But I believe lust is a very much misunderstood word and concept. It is precisely such a misunderstanding that caused Christians in the past to seclude themselves to living in caves apart from civilization. Perhaps this misunderstanding still prohibits Catholic priests from marrying. And it is this misunderstanding that leaves believers with the condemnation that they commit adultery every day of their lives.

I will argue, in this article, that

masturbation is not a sin,

lust means desire not thought, therefore erotic fantasies are not necessarily the lust Jesus spoke of in Matthew 5:28.

Common Misconceptions About Lust

When asked if masturbation is a sin, most “experts” would reply that the act is not wrong of itself, but the thoughts associated with it are (Matthew 5:28 is usually quoted at this point). Therein lies the first misconception concerning lust - equating lust with thoughts. Lust does not mean thought. The most common words translated as lust in the Bible are epithumeo, epipotheo, and orego. They all mean to desire, to covet, to long for intensely, to set one’s heart upon. The idea of intent or volition is strongly present. Consider 1 Tim 3:1

If any man desires (orego) the office of a bishop, he desires (epithumeo) a good thing.

Clearly both Greek words are being used interchangeably i.e. they are synonymous. No one who desires to be a bishop, sits and fantasizes all day about being a  bishop. He actively pursues the calling. He does whatever he has to do to achieve his goal. The NIV translates orego here as "sets his heart on". And since epithumeo means the same thing, in this context, the word lust means "to desire with intent". It does not mean "to form mental images". It's the same word epithumeo that appears in Matt 5:28, which will be discussed later. Essentially, someone who has erotic thoughts may not necessarily be guilty of lust.

Others say that masturbation is an act that flows from an evil heart of lust. Therein lies the second misconception - that lust is always bad. Suffice it to say at this point that the driving force that motivates people to masturbate is the same driving force that moves husbands and wives to have sex with each other. Let's face it, lust (sexual desire) is a very important part of sex. Lust is actually used in a good way in Matt. 13:17; Luke 22:15; 1 Tim 3:1; Heb. 6:11; and 1 Pet. 1:12. It is also used in a bad way in Matt. 5:28; Rom. 7:7; 13:9; 1 Cor. 10:6; and James 4:2.

Anything we desire is a lust. What makes it good or bad is the object of that desire. If we desire to be ministers of the Gospel, that is a good lust (1 Tim. 3:1). If we set our hearts on our neighbor’s wife, then that is a bad lust (Rom. 7:7; 13:9 cf. Ex. 20:17). Lust is actually the same word as covet in the Greek (Ex. 20:17). We can covet our neighbor's stuff, or we can covet earnestly the best gifts (1 Cor 12:31). Just like adultery and fornication are perversions of God's gift of sex, lust is a perversion of the sexual desire God gave us. Just like sex is only wrong if we have it with the wrong person, lust is wrong if we desire (covet) someone who is not our spouse.

Matthew 5:28

The most pertinent scripture in this discussion is Matt 5:28.

whosoever looketh on a woman to lust (epithumeo) after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (KJV)

The NIV translates this verse,

anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The NIV's is an unfortunate translation because the word epithumeo appearing in the verse is a verb (to lust) not an adverb (lustfully). The operative word is not look, but lust. Jesus is not talking about how a man looks at the woman or thinks about a woman, but about a man lusting after a woman (looking being an instrument of lusting). That makes a world of a difference in the true meaning of the verse, the true meaning intended by Jesus. He is addressing lust not fantasy.

In Matt. 5:28, I do not believe Jesus was speaking to teenagers who were at their sexual peak and were entertaining many erotic fantasies. That simply does not fit the context of the sermon on the mount. It is hardly likely that Jesus, in the middle of his tirade against the Pharisees, would throw a punch at teenagers. He was primarily addressing married men who had desires for women other than their wives. That same desire should have been directed toward their own wives (Prov. 5:19, 20). The lust Jesus spoke of was a determined desire to attain some outside woman, not a mere fantasy. Some of the Jews divorced their wives for this very reason. The very desire to do it was as bad as the act itself, Jesus said.

The IVP commentary on Matt. 5:28 defines lust as "the deliberate harboring of desire for an illicit relationship." It goes on to say that "Jesus refers not to noticing a person's beauty but to imbibing it, meditating on it, SEEKING TO POSSESS IT" [emphasis mine]. The idea of purposeful intent is present.

Matthew 5:28 is very similar to Proverbs 6:25.

            Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.

Proverbs 6:25-29 speak of lusting after a woman's beauty in one's heart. But even in this context, that woman is someone else's wife (vs. 29). This is talking about a strong desire to go out and have relations with someone. It is talking about the desires which eventually lead to the act of adultery. That lust is described as taking fire in your bosom and walking on hot coals. It is the kind of lust that WILL result in one getting burnt. That does not describe sexual fantasies. It describes something much much stronger than that. Sexual fantasies are merely thoughts with no intentions attached. The difference between fantasy and lust is the difference between imagining yourself driving a BMW and coveting your neighbor's BMW. They're not quite the same thing.

Proverbs 24:9 states "The thought of foolishness is sin (KJV)". But modern translations replace the word "thought" by "planning", "scheming", or "devising". Passive thoughts are not sin. It is intentions which are sinful (Acts 8:22). For example if I said, "I thought of going to the mall yesterday", that does not mean that mental images of me going to the mall flashed across my mind (passive thought), but rather that I planned to go to the mall (intent). It is the planning of foolishness that is sin, not the mere thought of it. Similarly the lust Matt. 5:28 discusses is a purposeful intent to have someone who is either not your wife or someone else's wife. This is what David was guilty of in 2 Sam. 11:2-4. David was not just fantasizing about Bathsheba, he had purposefully planned to get her. Sexual fantasy is simply not the subject of discussion in Matt. 5:28.

1 Corinthians 7:2,9

2) because of fornication, let each man have his own wife ,  9) if they cannot contain, let them marry. For it is better to marry than  to burn with passion.

Paul addresses single people struggling with sexual desires. Interestingly, Paul’s answer to them was not to repent of their carnal ways, but to marry (1 Cor. 7:2, 9). If Paul had a problem with people masturbating, that does not come across in 1 Cor 7. He said that if they cannot exercise self control, they should marry, which is better than burning with passion (vs. 9). Paul never condemned them for lacking self control, but just gave them an escape out of it. But self control for what? The very same verse gives us the answer -  self control to avoid burning passions. What is burning with passion? Burning with passion is that strong desire couples have to make love to each other. Burning with passion is not the same as having sexual fantasies. You need self control to avoid getting too close physically in a relationship. If they could not contain themselves any longer, then they should marry. That ties in perfectly with verse 2, where he says that people should marry to avoid fornication. That was the problem with burning passion - it leads to fornication. Paul never said that they needed self control to avoid masturbating or fantasizing. It is burning passions they needed to beware of.

Questions to Ponder

I do not believe that masturbation, with all its related thoughts, is a sin. I believe that sexual fantasies are normal. Masturbation is merely a means of fulfilling that desire while not yet married. In the light of what the Bible teaches (or does not teach), I cannot honestly call masturbation sin. For single people struggling with temptation, I personally believe that masturbation is better than fornication. In fact masturbation releases sexual energy which builds up over time, and this in turn may make one less tempted to commit fornication.

Here are a few questions to masticate for those who still insist it's a sin to masturbate, even if it cannot be proven from the Bible.

Why is it that over 90% of men masturbate, but that figure is significantly smaller for women? It is a fact that men are more sexually aggressive than women. If masturbation is a sin, then God performed a great injustice to men.

Why is it that a man's sexual desire is so intense prior to ejaculation yet virtually non-existent afterward? If the desire and the thoughts are so wrong, why not just masturbate and get rid of them? Some people "battle" with these thoughts incessantly without actually committing the act of masturbation. Aren't they just as "guilty" as those who masturbate?

Why is it that the "experts" offer such impractical advice for "overcoming masturbation"? See for example http://www.bible.com/answers/amasturb.html where people are encouraged to confess this sin to their pastor. Who would seriously do that? See also http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormast.htm where "victims" are advised to sleep with one hand tied and to leave the bathroom door open during showers to reduce the level of privacy. Even Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence  People is recommended to help cure masturbation. I think these well meaning folk have not given the subject much serious study, and just allow tradition to blind them while using a few proof texts to back up their ignorance.

Why is it that Paul never mentioned anything in 1 Cor. 7 about overcoming lust and masturbation? All he did was allow single people in such situations to marry. There is absolutely no doubt that for the situations described in Corinth, it was a relevant topic. This was a perfect opportunity for Paul to bring it up. In fact Paul seems to imply that the only people immune from sexual desires and needs are those with the gift of celibacy. Paul's solution to the problem was not self control, but marriage - marriage to avoid fornication, not to avoid masturbation (vs. 9).

Why does the Law have absolutely nothing to say concerning self stimulation? It condemns just about every sexual abuse imaginable - adultery, fornication, rape, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, orgies. There were some things I did not learn about until I read them in Leviticus. Why isn't masturbation on the list?

Why does the Word of God generally have so little (if any at all) to say about a "sin" that affects over 90% of men and may even be the reason for them going to hell? Did the Bible miss something? If I had to give the benefit of any doubt, I would rather let God be true.

Conclusion

The belief that masturbation is a sin hinges on an presumed correlation with adultery, which itself hinges on a specious interpretation of Matt. 5:28. I have attempted to provide an alternative interpretation of that scripture which I believe is more in context with  the Sermon on the Mount and the rest of scripture. The bible does not seem to think that masturbation is a serious issue.

paragonpro:
^^^
Sorry your figures are way wrong.

The price of oil did not average $100 per day last year, it fluctuates between $90 - $100.

The average production per day is around $2.2 - $2.4 million barrels per day.

The government share of the proceeds is between 55% - 60%, the joint partner companies take the rest.

The government also have to pay their own share in the joint partner arrangements

Well I do not blame you, since the government operate in secrecy and not provide information on its oil receipts, all we can do is speculate.

jayriginal:
Really, how do you know the video has not been edited ?
Its minus one to the holy ghost.

The founder and General Overseer of Synagogue Church of Christ while ministering on Monday during one of the church's programmes televised live on cable television, DSTV,  Emmanuel Televison  revealed that having watched the encounter in the spiritual realm, the outcome of the encounter was not favourable to the Nigerian lads.

The clergyman disclosed that only one goal was scored all through the 90 minutes of the match, warning that the Super Eagles might lose the match based on what he saw.

He, however, explained that the result could still be positive but advised the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) to seek the face of God through him on the issue before the must win match.

When Saturdaytribunesports contacted him, Prophet Joshua confirmed the 1-0 score line, saying that even though he did not state where the pendulum of victory would swing , he declared emphatically that Nigerians must pray fervently for Eagles'success.

He warned that the Super Eagles needed divine prayers to emerge victorious.

Efforts to get in touch with the coaching crew of the Super Eagles did not materialise as none of them was ready to speak about the development.

Prophet T.B Joshua is known for making accurate predictions, having predicted victory for the Super Eagles over Kenya in a 2010 World Cup qualifier played in Nairobi  which the Eagles won 3-2 just as he predicted that the Starlets of Ghana would lift the FIFA U-17 World Cup staged in Egypt in 2009.

Did any body notice the hedging in the prophecy  ? Whether Nigeria or Guinea had won by a goal , the prophecy would have been fulfilled. Too bad the arm-chair analyst tried to pass off his analysis as a prophecy I admire his guts though. It was an intelligent guess. However,|||

Prophet T.B. Joshua last sunday prophesied that the match will end 1 - 0 in favour of guinea.

He said the goal will come after a long strugle by the two sides.

'i watched the full match in my dream last night' he said. He made the statement in his church where live cameras are streaming his service to millions of viewers around the world.
* * *
'the holy spirit is infallibly
accurate! Any day i make a
mistake in prophesy, it means i
am not talking from God' - snr.
Prophet T.B. Joshua

^^Minus One to the Holy Ghost (which clearly doesnt exist from the foregoing)^^

Welder:
^^^what is so difficult to understand in head to head. Twas the same thing that ruled Nigeria out of the 2006 world cup hosted by Germany. . . we had superior goal difference to Angola but they qualified ahead because they won in Luanda and got a draw in Kano. . . Coaches should stop making stup.id excuses for their failure. . . .

http://www.iol.co.za/sport/bemused-bafana-in-the-dark-over-procedure-1.577948


[size=16pt]Bemused Bafana 'in the dark' over procedure[/size]

September 11 2007 at 05:16am

Johannesburg - In a startling admission, many of the Bafana Bafana players have confirmed they were "in the dark" over the Caf rules that resulted in Zambia catapulting over South Africa as Group 11 winners after their stunning 3-1 win in Cape Town on Sunday - and thereby gaining an automatic qualifying berth for the tournament in Ghana next year.

The damning implication, therefore, is that Safa's technical team under coach Carlos Alberto Parreira were also "in the dark" over Caf's qualifying rules - or, alternatively, failed to communicate the exact details of the format to the players before their ignominious defeat.

Ultimately, Bafana barely squeezed into the Nations Cup Finals by virtue of being one of the three best second-placed teams in the qualifying process.

But the incorrect impression bandied about before Sunday's game at Newlands was that Bafana would retain their position as group winners as long as they avoided a defeat of three goals or more - thereby edging out Zambia by virtue of scoring more goals though the two nations involved would finish with the same 11-point tally and the same overall goal-difference.

The Caf rules, however, stipulate that when two teams end equal on points, the deciding factor will relate to the head-to-head meetings between the teams concerned and not the overall situation in the group.

And with Zambia having beaten Bafana 3-1 after losing 1-0 in an earlier qualifying game in Zambia, it was "The Silver Bullets" who blasted their way to the top of the qualifying group with a 3-2 goal advantage over the two games after finishing level with Bafana on 11 points in Group 11.

"At no time did Safa confirm that overall goal-difference and not head-to-head goal difference could decide the issue between Zambia and South Africa," said Safa media spokesman Sifiso Cele, "and Safa is not responsible if there was a widespread misconception regardin this issue.

"In fact," added Cele, "coach Parreira was always adamant that Bafana's objective against Zambia was to win the game - and had this materialised, there would have been no arguments over the rules and who the group winners were."

At the same time, Safa at no time clarified the issue either - with some outrageously incorrect submissions bandied about that Zambia needed to win the game against South Africa by a minimum of five goals to win the group.

And with Safa silent on the issue, it would seem performances off the pitch were, in some instances, not any better than those when Zambian captain Chris Katongo tore the Bafana defence to shreds with his sensational opening 20-minute hat-trick. - Sapa

http://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/sa-football-stands-embarrassed-1.1153838


[size=16pt]SA football stands embarrassed[/size]

October 10 2011 at 12:13pm


reuters and SAPA dpa

A little more than a year after hosting the World Cup, South African football is this week nursing a giant hangover after a failure to understand the rules that saw them miss out on qualification for the African Cup of Nations (Afcon).

Coach Pitso Mosimane admitted he had changed tactics and played for a 0-0 draw in Saturday’s final qualifier at home to Sierra Leone, thinking it was sufficient to win the group and qualify for the 2012 finals, to be jointly hosted by Gabon and Equatorial Guinea.

South Africa actually needed a win to avoid being eliminated on head-to-head results between the three teams tied at the top of the table, but no-one appeared to have studied the regulations correctly.

Despite playing out the draw, they were pipped by outsiders Niger, who qualified for the first time.

More embarrassingly, Bafana celebrated their supposed qualification at the end of the match in Nelspruit, thinking they had done enough to advance to next year’s finals.

Mosimane, who took over after the World Cup, was under the impression that goal difference was the determining factor to decide the group winners. So, when he was told that leaders Niger were losing in Egypt, he changed tactics and settled for a draw.

Niger had led Bafana by a point going into the final round of qualifiers on Saturday.

“Do you think I would have left (striker Lehlohonolo) Majoro on the bench and put on a midfielder if I knew that we needed a goal? It doesn’t make sense,” Mosimane said, before criticising the regulations. “Africa is a jungle, my friend.”

Mosimane was not the only one to fall foul of a misreading of the rules. The SABC proclaimed qualification and the South African Football Association (Safa) president Kirsten Nematandani went on television to congratulate the team.

Safa attempted a damage limitation exercise yesterday, sending a protest letter to the Cairo-based Confederation of African Football arguing their team’s failure to win top place in the qualifying group was unfair and that they would appeal the decision.

The rules, though, were clear long before the start of the qualifying period: “In case of equality of points between two or more teams, after all the group matches, the ranking of the teams shall be established according to the following criteria: Greater number of points obtained in the matches between the concerned teams.”

A majority of football fans writing on a local footballing website have said they do not approve of Safa’s decision to appeal.

A user called Mmusi urged Safa to drop the case: “Stop embarrassing our country. The rules were not implemented mid-competition.”

Sabelo wrote: “Challenging the rules is more stupid than yesterday’s celebrations.”

Nematandani came in for criticism after saying that the association would fight the case all the way.

“Mr Nematandani, don’t embarrass our nation further. These rules were the first to be put in place. I now understand why our standard of education is deemed to be low. When I read these rules, they are plain, clear and not ambiguous. You are supposed to take blame here, together with your entire team and management,” thabani1980 wrote.

“I think you must apologise to the nation for misinterpretation of the stated rule.”

The fans also slammed goalkeeper Itumeleng Khune, who was blatantly involved in time-wasting and then joked with fans during the game, pointing to an imaginary watch on his wrist. “Failing to beat a team ranked 150-something at home is disgraceful, add to that Khune’s disgraceful behaviour on the field of play,” Mandla wrote.

dayokanu:
Tell me who were the Moslem alternatives to Otedola in 1992, Is it Agbalajobi, Yomi Edu or Sarumi

Lagosboy:
Bros get your facts right please, in as much as i dont like this thread and believe it makes no sense. It was Femi Agbalajobi vs Sarumi in the SDP fiasco of 91. Yomi Edu who is a muslim only emerged after the 2 were disqualified and contested against Michael Otedola a chritian.

Lagos indegines are mainly muslims and you need to go to isale eko where i am from to  understand what we mean. Almost every southwest family have a mix in terms of religion and we have to treat ourselves with mutual respect. ´The thread is divisive and governance does nopt depend on the religion of the politician as most politicians in Nigeria are thieves anyway.

dayokanu:
Chris Abdulazeez Ngige

Adam Nurudeen Oshiomole

Kayode Razaq Fayemi

akinalabi:
The PDP crises has really helped ACN. The PDP votes were split into two

honeric01:
@hamid o
0verhead is different from revenue, sanusi was talking about the former and not the latter.

@folem
Even with all the info, u still don't get it? Office of the budget says 25% of overhead spendings go to the NASS, whats there that you don't understand? Why not look up what overhead stands for?

GAR3TH:
16 of the 20 LGA's of lagos state makes up Lagos(city). none of them are called lagos, but together the make up Lagos(city).