There's definitely two sides to this coin, some people say that masturbation is not a sin that leads to death, others say that it's a sin because Jesus commands us to deny the desires of our flesh. So my question to you, is multi-faceted: What biblical basis for claiming that masturbation is a sin?

Human sperm are known to live for up to 74 days inside a man's body , after which they are reabsorbed by the body. This means that, if a man releases sperm in an ejaculation, the sperm would have been reabsorbed anyway unless that man found a woman within 75 days. There is the story of Onan, but it seems to refer to coitus interruptus (practicing some form of contraception) when a woman is available and the man's holy duty (Levirate Marriage) was to raise children with his dead brother's widow, who would inherit the property. A separate category is spilling seed when one is not dating anyone. Please state what Christian denomination you are answering from (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) and then explain (with sources) what is the current position of your Church on the matter of "wasting seed", in the following scenarios: 1) Masturbation, where someone is "single" or a wedding is not planned within 75 days 2) Using condoms during premarital sex, e.g. to prevent catching an STD (I understand this one is a bit of a tough one, since premarital sex itself may be prohibited by some denominations, but given that it does take place, there must be some opinions regarding whether health concerns or wasting seed takes precedence?) 3) Using condoms within a marriage (e.g. as a form of contraception) NOTE: This question is NOT asking about abortion or birth control pills.

My side: I believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit , in Bible (solo), that it's possible to have deep experiences nowadays with God as Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Paul did by fasting and seeking souls, and if you to die in sin you'll lose your salvation, they usually call this in my country as Pentecostalism. This [post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48/what-is-the-biblical-basis-to-claim-that-masturbation-is-a-sin) (**What is the biblical basis to claim that masturbation is a sin?**) doesn't have answers that answers me, their answers are either about adultery in heart, that masturbation is not sin by itself but the impure thinking is, onan based (which is a very poor argument) and rational arguments (see below). First of all, I'm not wondering with myself if it's a sin or not (I will not go with answers that doesn't consider it as a sin by itself), but when I'm being tempted some questions comes up and I fall in sin because the little doubt space if it's a sin, I'd like to know a straightforward answer that proves it's a sin (although I know it's a sin) without rational arguments, by that I mean some stuff like: "you get sad masturbating", "this brings you closer to pornography", "this pollutes your mind", summarizing it all it means "arguments that are based in empiricism, subjectivism, abuse of logic..." Another argument which I will not go with is "you are commenting adultery in your mind" because it's not from what a masturbation is by own but just a consequence, I know the Bible doesn't state about that very clear... but I'm hopefully in to find out a raw argument, I was studying about that, those bellow are the best arguments that I find out but I'd like to find something stronger: - In my language, fornication is any sexual act from marriage outside but in English dictionary is to have sex with another one without being married to each other so from Portuguese dictionary masturbation is easily a sin but on English one not. - Masturbation can be seen as an immoral sexuality but some Bible translate this as fornication and there is no formal definition for sexual immorality. - The strongest one is Jude 1:7: "7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.", I'm not sure what "gone after strange flesh" really means but in my Portuguese Bible it means "non natural sexual relationship" since a natural relationship from the bible seems to mean "sex in marriage" is easier to go masturbation as sin but I'm not satisfied with the such argument because the Bible doesn't say "a natural sexual relation is...." PS: I'm not accepting rational arguments because by rational arguments so many things don't make sense in bible, example why is "OK" pay within an eternity for something you done in your finite life? by logic the bible has some contradictions and so on...

It is sometimes said that St. Thomas Aquinas taught that rape is a lesser sin than masturbation. Is this actually the case? Here are two examples: > [In Aquinas's view], Because sins against nature were sins against God, they were considered more serious than sins against other people, such as adultery, seduction, and rape (John F. Schumaker, Religion and Mental Health [Oxford University Press US], 1992), 76). To make his point perfectly clear, Aquinas poses a question: are not rape and adultery worse than unnatural acts, since they harm other persons, while consensual sins against nature do not? The answer is unequivocal: the four non-procreative forms of sex are worse, since–though not harmful to others–they are sins directly against God himself as the creator of nature. According to this logic, rape, which may at least lead to pregnancy, becomes a less serious sin than masturbation (Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilisation, [Harvard University Press, 2006], 188). > > "A practice opposed to the pattern set for us by nature" exceeds in wickedness the seduction of an innocent of the opposite sex, adultery, and rape (II-II 154:12) (Sex from Plato to Paglia, by Alan Soble [Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006], 1053). What is the source of this notion, and is the statement true in context? If it is, what led Aquinas to this conclusion?

St. Thomas Aquinas said: > **Objection 1.** It would seem that the unnatural vice is not the greatest sin among the species of lust. For the more a sin is contrary > to charity the graver it is. Now adultery, seduction and rape which > are injurious to our neighbor are seemingly more contrary to the love > of our neighbor, than unnatural sins, by which no other person is > injured. Therefore the unnatural sin is not the greatest among the > species of lust. > > On the contrary, Augustine says that "of all these", namely the sins > belonging to lust, "that which is against nature is the worst". > > I answer that, In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the > principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are > those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes > things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things > according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative > and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the > most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the > knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of > action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as > determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man > transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to > the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin > is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above, is > contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us. > > With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression > merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the > presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against > reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the > future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides. > Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to > another person, is the least grave among the species of lust. Then, it > is a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is subject > to another's authority as regards the act of generation, than as > regards merely her guardianship. Wherefore adultery is more grievous > than seduction. And both of these are aggravated by the use of > violence. Hence rape of a virgin is graver than seduction, and rape of > a wife than adultery. And all these are aggravated by coming under the > head of sacrilege, as stated above. > > **Reply to Objection 1.** Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: > wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature > is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature.

Historically, Onan in Genesis 38 has been [accused of masturbation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan) , and for this supposed transgression was struck dead. The term Onanism (or in German __Onanie__) is still used to describe this practice. For example: - Jerome write: >But I wonder why he the heretic Jovinianus set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother his seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? - Clement of Alexandria, while not making explicit reference to Onan, similarly reflects an early Christian view of the abhorrence of spilling seed: >Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted. To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature Was Onan's sin really masturbation?

This says: > Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all (CCC 2290). The statement "Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all" can be found elsewhere like here and somewhere there . I have two concerns on that statement. --- **First concern**: But what about CCC 229**1**? --- **Second concern**: The Catholic Church is against masturbation. My opinion is that smoking is worse than masturbation so if the Catholic Church will not allow even a single instance of masturbation, how can it allow even a single instance of smoking? The Catholic Church believes that action that lead to good effects or no bad effects does not mean the action is good. But an action that has a lot of bad effects and serious risks and little good effects to justify the bad effects and serious risks, how can such an action be anything but bad? Does the Catholic Church really consider masturbation to be more harmful or a graver offense than smoking? Does the Catholic Church consider non-excessive smoking to be not an offense or not harmful at all? I find would it quite absurd if either is the case. All of the Catholic Church's arguments against masturbation apply to smoking as well. From the Catechism: > 2352 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 > > To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility > and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective > immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other > psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a > minimum, moral culpability. So why can't we say anything like this? > By smoking is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the > lungs in order to derive 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 > smoking is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The > deliberate use of the respiratory faculty, for whatever reason, that > causes harm to anyone is essentially contrary to its purpose." For > here respiratory pleasure is sought at the cost the health of one's > self or others which is demanded by the moral order and in which the > total meaning of health and human breathing is achieved." > > To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility > and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective > immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other > psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a > minimum, moral culpability. I found a thread related to this topic on a Catholic forum , but the matter doesn't seem to have been resolved. First post in the thread (I added the bold): > Now, how can we compare masturbation to anything else by allegory? I > compare it to eating nutrition-less foods, or smoking. We consider a > bit of absolutely-unhealthy chocolate now-and-again to be acceptable, > or even a pack of cigarettes on a Sunday. These are not considered > grave sins, only disordered pleasures! Nutrition, however is the very > point of the digestive faculty, and **proper-breathing is the very** > **foundation of the lungs**. By comparison, masturbation is an abuse of > the sexual faculty; so, all faculties in a human body being equal, > masturbation can only be a disordered attachment, not a grave sin. The > parallel is complete. > > If you can eat a big chocolate cake once a year, why can't you > masturbate once a year? **Smoking?** Red wine? Fatty foods? **How far can** > **this stretch?** We cannot deny everything to our bodies, like gnostics. > This is very frustrating because I see no problem whatever, yet my > conscience has been formed entirely around avoiding masturbation. A later post : > Can someone explain why that is not just as disordered as > masturbation? Smoking is purely for one's own pleasure (just like > masturbation) and it uses a part of the body in a way that is at odds > with its intended purpose (just like masturbation). A later post : > Why is the deliberate over-stimulation of the glottis, tongue, > pleasure-receptors, etc. only "potentially" a (venial) sin, whereas > the deliberate over-stimulation of the glands-penis or clitoral > faculty always "actually" a mortal sin? This seems very odd and > dualistic. --- Below I have listed some arguments for my opinion that smoking is worse than masturbation. I hope I won't come across as someone trying to justify masturbation. I believe it is immoral but that smoking is immoral as well and I am trying to argue my case that smoking is immoral based on the fact smoking is more harmful than masturbation. I find it quite absurd that the Catholic Church would not mind if their followers smoked and taught their children to smoke since that seems to be the logical conclusion if non-excessive smoking is deemed not sinful. (Just imagine a priest visiting his (adult) nieces or nephews for Christmas and giving them a pack of cigarettes) **Some points about smoking and masturbation:** 1. If smoking and masturbation are harmful recreational activities, *smoking is artificial* and therefore more harmful. 2. Smoking introduces a *new substance or substances into the body* while masturbation has little physical difference from sex in terms of what the body releases or takes in. Smoking of course is of a higher category than eating junk food. 3. Smoking can cause ["vascular stenosis, lung cancer,\[46\] heart attacks\[47\] and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease."][10] *Masturbation has no such physical health risks.* Masturbation can be argued to have mental health risks but so does smoking. "No causal relationship is known between masturbation and any form of mental or physical disorder." 4. "The medical consensus is that masturbation is a medically healthy and psychologically normal habit.". I don't think there's any such medical consensus for smoking. I mean just look at this section on smoking health risks on Wikipedia. *Smoking during pregnancy can cause fetuses to have mental illnesses.* If masturbation during pregnancy has greater risks to fetuses to have mental illnesses far more than smoking, I'll sell my possessions and give to the poor. 5. *Smoking is harmful to the environment.* The release of semen into toilet bowls or trash cans may be harmful, but it's no more harmful than sex is. There are zones for smoking, but there aren't any signs in bathrooms or airplanes that say "no masturbating". Airplanes have smoke detectors, but they don't have semen detectors. 6. Generally, people are significantly more concerned when hearing of a *12-year old boy who smokes* but not of one who masturbates. Generally, cigarettes are not allowed to be sold to minors while babies have been reported to stimulate their genitals instinctively. 7. Tell me honestly, would you rather have a smoking addiction or a masturbation addiction? If you were a parent and hypothetically had to choose between having any of your kids with a masturbation addiction and any with a smoking addiction, you would choose masturbation. It hasn't been shown to have high risk of cancer or organ damage compared to smoking. 8. We don't hear news about masturbation addicted husbands beating their wives and children but we do hear news about (legal) drug addicted husbands beating their wives and children. 9. You can't donate blood if you've masturbated in the last day, but you can donate blood if you've smoked :D 10. When you are hospitalized, doctors don't care if you do or used to masturbate. But they do care if you do or used to smoke.

The context in Matthew 5:30 strongly suggests that Jesus is talking about adultery. Verse 21 starts with "You have heard", starting a section about respecting your neighbor. Again, Verse 27 starts with "You have heard" and starts a section about adultery. The next section after that starts at verse 33 with similar words "Again, you have heard". All these sections concentrate on one issue. Also, the word "again" in verse 33 emphasizes the fact that these are separate sections. Therefore it's quite clear that verses 27-30 are related to adultery, and 31-32 are a continuation of that theme. Also, verse 28 makes it clear that verse 29 is about lusting with the eye. Then verse 30 is very similar to verse 29, only different body part. Given these observations above, it's clear for me that Jesus is banning masturbation. My question is that could "**right hand**" mean something else, also? Remember that Jesus is talking about adultery, or to put in another way, not meeting the sexual needs of your spouse. The spouse is neglected against in both masturbation and adultery with another person (masturbation is kind of adultery, too). So, is there any other possible meaning for the ”**right hand**” in verse 30, considering the context? I’m a fundamentalist protestant, having not found a denomination with perfect theology yet. I just want to know if any Bible-believing Christian has found another explanation (based on Bible and this context) for the **right hand**, other than masturbation. Matthew 5:27-30: 27. “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28.but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29.“If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30.“If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

> By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. CCC 2352 So does this mean I need to buy extra gold bond medicated powder to avoid jock itch (and mortal sin), or is that just excessive scrupulosity? The real question is, is the 'grave matter' involved in masturbation always involve ejaculation or does the offense against chastity lie in your intentions? And the source of consternation in this is that in conjugal sex, ejaculating outside of your wife is considered the 'grave matter' so I'd have to imagine the rationale for that being bad is totally different than the rationale for masturbation being sinful but I don't know why.