A Sin Against the Forums (ritual, evolution, creation, spiritual)

[DeepShadow]

(Note: I'm stating below as a given that masturbation is a sin. If you disagree--and I know many of you do--please do so in another thread, to keep this one on topic.)

If masturbation is a sin, what are we to make of "mental masturbation?" I'm not talking about sexual fantasies, or anything else sexual for that matter. I'm employing an analogy that seems more and more apt the more I spell it out for myself. I'm referring to fixation on fruitless hypotheticals, endless "what-if"-ing, and other wasteful wondering that lacks the discipline of logic, the gravity of spiritual enlightenment, and--most importantly--the synthesis and synergy that come from considering other input.

Masturbation has been called a sin because it misuses the divine gift of creation toward purely selfish ends. Taking that as a given, I would place this "mental masturbation" in the same category. It's a misuse of the divine gift of intelligence for selfish ends, a waste of the gift of time, and a gross abuse of the divine power of creation that comes from deep and meaningful interaction with other minds.

I didn't realize until recently that some posters here were engaging in this, and inviting others to join with them under the guise of debate or discussion. The more I think about it, the more I believe it's wrong, and I refuse to be part of it. I came here to think and consider new worldviews, and I respect people's views and thoughts too deeply to violate that trust. I ask all of you to consider this and make your own decisions. What say you?

[yuvgotmel]

What you are demeaning as "mental masturbation" some call "BRAIN STORMING," which can lead to innovative ideas, technologies and evolution in many areas.

Since you used the analogy of creation, I ask you this. Does every sperm make it to an egg? And if not, then was the effort a waste of time???

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by yuvgotmel

What you are demeaning as "mental masturbation" some call "BRAIN STORMING," which can lead to innovative ideas, technologies and evolution in many areas.

No, I have no problem with brainstorming. Brainstorming is the first of many important steps in any good discussion, but it has to end eventually. Moreover, one of the first and fundamental rules of brainstorming is the consideration of everyone's ideas, thus this fails to qualify at two levels. I'm talking about something else.

Since you used the analogy of creation, I ask you this. Does every sperm make it to an egg? And if not, then was the effort a waste of time???

Not at all. I'm not demeaning speculation in general, only speculation that refuses to yield the stage when it has served its purpose, or that masquerades as legitimate debating.

[yuvgotmel]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

I'm not demeaning speculation in general, only speculation that refuses to yield the stage when it has served its purpose.

I didn't realize until recently that some posters here were engaging in this, and inviting others to join with them under the guise of debate or discussion.

Sounds like you are speaking of something(s) rather specific. It would help if you had some examples.

[DeepShadow]

I know what you mean, Mel--my wife just said exactly the same thing--but I hesistate to give any examples for several reasons. For one thing, the primary offender here would be singled out for something that may be much more widespread.

I tell you what. I'll look around and see if I can find some other examples, file off the serial numbers, and offer them for your analysis. Sound good?

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

I tell you what. I'll look around and see if I can find some other examples, file off the serial numbers, and offer them for your analysis. Sound good?

I agree. I am not sure what you mean by "mental masturbating". Does poetry qualify? I guess I need to see some examples too.

[Feathers in Hair]

Or would it be just 'posting to hear yourself thinking'? I sure hope I'm not the one in question.

[DeepShadow]

Examples:
Member A: criticizes another church's buildings--too big and gaudy.
Member B: suggests the size and splendor of those buildings are part of the religious experience, because they make one feel small etc. by comparison.
Member A: says that's not true, that there's no reason for the buildings to be big and gaudy except for greed and pride.

If this exchange were to continue, I would say that Member A is committing this offense. I know it's hard to make a judgement from a single exchange, but imagine this kind of thing going on for pages on end.

Member X: says the earth was created yesterday. Cites polonium radiohaloes as evidence.
Member Y: corrects X's math with regard to radiohaloes.
Member X: cites another scientist with bad math to bolster his claim.

In this case, X is refusing to even weigh Y's logic, despite having centered the playing field in the logical arena by speaking scientifically. I have no problem with people giving spiritual answers to spiritual questions, or even intuitive answers, but if they claim to be using logic/science, they ought to allow others to weigh the statements using logical or scientific criteria. Again, imagine this going on for pages on end.

Member !: Asks if the Mars Rover ever found a teapot on Mars.
Member ?: Says that there should be photographic evidence if the Rover found it. Posts link to the Mars Rover website.
Member !: Suggests that the photographs might have existed, but were deleted. Posts links to NASA employee list, and suggests possible culprits.

A brief exchange is one thing, but I believe that pages of this on end display a disregard for ?'s part of the argument. He/she isn't being given the opportunity to change !'s mind, only shape !'s paranoia. ! has, OTOH, treated the question as already answered, instead of letting it be up for debate.

The following are NOT examples of this offense.

Member 1: says there's no such thing as God, period.
Member 2: says that God helped write the Bible, which is proof of God.
Member 1: attacks 2's circular argument, and repeats that there's no such thing as God, period.
This is NOT an example because 1 at least addresses 2's argument. The topic appears relevant to both of them, and they are participating with each other.

Member #: presents scholarly evidence that the historical Jesus was a woman.
Member $: offers counterarguments to the scholarly evidence, and is outraged that # would even say this.
Member #: admits it seemed flimsy, and personally believed otherwise, but wanted to clear the air anyway. Points out that presentation of evidence does not equal endorsement.

This is NOT an example because # is seeking feedback toward an end. Even hearing other people's views on things is an end.