>>16548651
One is an action relating to lust and the other is the lacking of it.

>>16548651
You're acting like you don't know what unrestrained coomers turn into. It's obvious even without a shred of religion why, without any limits, cooming and becoming a total gooner is bad. Even if you begrudge that, its good that whatever religion or philosophy you have puts some restriction or self limiting feeling in you to keep you from becoming a gooner, even if you resent it.

>>16548654
>>16548658
Wouldn't sex with one's wife also be lustful then? Lust is what enacts sexuality as a whole, the term does not designate an excess of sexuality, but sexuality as a whole, so the exact same "lust" found in fornication, masturbation etc., necessarily also would be the same found within intercourse with one's wife, otherwise it would be meaningless for monastics to be celibate, wouldn't it?

>>16548667
> Wouldn't sex with one's wife also be lustful then?
If all you see in her is meat to be plowed, yes. If you see her as more than that, no. There is an important distinction to be made here. In a pious relationship, you are not fornicating with your wife simply due to her physical beauty but as well due to the intimacy of the action and the consummating of said marriage. This is what distinguishes it from pure lust.

>>16548667
people who just bang their wife alot don't become poorly adjusted freaks. ppl who coom 15 times a day do.

>>16548672
You're not banging your wife while thinking about her personality.
>>16548673
Chads who bang multiple women don't either, but their behavior is lustful, explain

>>16548675
right, and thats all im saying. becoming a gooner is whats bad. thats objectively true regardless of religion.

>>16548675
> You're not banging your wife while thinking about her personality
It’s a combination of all the parts that make her, her. Again, this is what distinguishes it from lust. If you are fornicating with her simply because you see an arousing slab of meat and not a person you love, it is lust. For one to truly love you have to see beyond that and so it is no longer lust.

>>16548675
>Chads who bang multiple women don't either
....sure.

>Wake up
>Shower
>Do some paperwork
>Go to Uni
>Go to work
>Come home late, grind out some homework
>Masturbate before bed

So what?

>>16548680
>It’s a combination of all the parts that make her, her.
So you're conceding

>>16548680
See >>16548688

>>16548698
Yes anon, nobody has sex with a woman JUST due to their personality, but that does not mean we go to the other extreme of the spectrum and only consider physical beauty. If you had properly read my reply you would’ve understood that.

>>16548705
I don’t see how my post relates to yours. Are you asking me whether your situation is lustful?

>>16548706
>nobody has sex with a woman JUST due to their personality
So 50% lust makes it not lust? It seems you've completely conceded to the point I was making

>>16548706
>>16548713
Hahaha so what if someone masturbates while also crushing on the person he's masturbating to? You've clearly failed to make a cohesive point

>>16548715
They have no relationship to the person they are crushing so yes, it would be lustful. He only has an image of that person, which in many cases is only physical.
>>16548713
I haven’t, because I have reiterated this many times that lust pertains to being wholly consumed by an aspect such as physical beauty, for the purposes of satiating a carnal desire. Physical beauty being a component to a larger set of qualities that engenders love in you is not lustful.

>>16548651


MASTURBATION IS NOT SINFUL BECAUSE «ONE IS NOT HAVING CHILDREN», BUT BECAUSE, BY MASTURBATING, ONE SURRENDERS ONESELF TO THE VICE OF LUST, AND INDULGES IN AN IMPURE ACT THAT IS DERTIMENTAL TO ONE'S HEALTH.

>>16548723
>They have no relationship
Yes they do, they have a parasocial relationship
>>16548723
>lust pertains to being wholly consumed
Being halfway consumed by lust is still lust

>>16548672
>There is an important distinction to be made here. In a pious relationship, you are not fornicating with your wife simply due to her physical beauty but as well due to the intimacy of the action and the consummating of said marriage.
there's lust in this

>>16548726
>parasocial relationship
Defining it by another term does not change the essence of what I said. The person does not have the required relationship with the person necessary to allow them to assess the qualities of the person fully to such an extent that it is not simply physical lust.
>Being halfway consumed by lust is still lust
Anon, at this rate it seems you simply wish to argue for the sake of arguing because I addressed this most clearly. It stops being lust the moment it is not for the purpose of satiating your carnal desires, eg. the moment it is not the major aspect of your love for a person. Love needs a degree of physical attraction, but as I said, it is not the ultimate aspect that defines your love.

>>16548732
Care to explain which part? Or do you consider any and all physical attraction to be lust?

>>16548667
>Wouldn't sex with one's wife also be lustful then?
Yes. Married people are sinners but forgiven by Paul. To be truly without sin according to eunuchristianity you should become an incel monk nun, only those are guaranteed salvation.
No sex in heaven. No birth. No children. No romantic relationships. No biological sex. No gender.

>>16548738
>Love needs a degree of physical attraction
Lust

>>16548746
We will have to agree to disagree then, it is clearly our axiomatic beliefs differ on the matter and are irreconcilable.

>>16548744
the cuckristian resurrection is mass sex-transition event of all humans into castrated/erectile dysfunction men in a gay marriage with christ

>>16548747
Lust is not a degree of something, it's 1 thing, you've failed to demonstrate that it isn't just that.

>>16548753
> According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, a Christian's heart is lustful when "venereal satisfaction is sought for either outside wedlock or, at any rate, in a manner which is contrary to the laws that govern marital intercourse".
Loving your wife and fornicating with her in a way that appreciates her beauty and person and not for your own, personal pleasure is not lust.

Christians may put additional restrictions in such that you should be having intercourse for reproduction only but in any case, the entire point is that you are not to be partaking in these actions to sate your own, carnal desires that are consuming you.

Lust =/= any and all physical attaction

>>16548762
>not for your own, personal pleasure
What???? How do you not have personal pleasure while having sex? What are you even talking about?
>Lust =/= any and all physical attaction
Then describe an alternative, you're just dodging the actual question, without being precise, if all sexual attraction is not lust, what is the sexual attraction that is lust? Because you're forming your arguments around points I've made, make one of your own.

>>16548651
>A celibate person is not having children either, but celibacy is considered a virtue -- why?
What? You thought Christian theology was some bastion of reason and not low-IQ cope?

>>16548774
> What???? How do you not have personal pleasure while having sex? What are you even talking about?
Reading comprehension, anon. You are not solely doing it for the satiating of your carnal desires only. You are consummating a relationship with someone you love. No one said you should not get any satisfaction from it, just that the purpose of doing so isn’t a selfish satiating of your desires.
> what is the sexual attraction that is lust?
May I ask where I specifically mentioned sexual attraction? Physical and sexual attraction are not the same. Since you asked, though, sexual attraction is indeed lustful a large majority of the time but I would not say it is should it 1. not feed into a carnal desire as I have mentioned and 2. be for the purposes of reproduction. After all, how could you fornicate with your wife if you were not sexually attracted to her? No one would say it is lustful to make love with her.
Anyway, as I said, it is clear our beliefs on the matter will differ and there is nothing objective about what you and I have said. What one considers lustful is up to the individual. Agree to disagree.

>>16548667
How much fucking sophistry are you going to wallow in just so you can touch your pee pee to whatever porno you like, as often as you like?

Be a man, sir.

Lust is disordered sexual desire that violates chastity. Sex within marriage is not lust because that is the proper place for the sexual instinct. Being sexually attracted to one's wife is not lust because such attraction is rightly ordered in the context of marriage. It doesn't violate the virtue of chastity.

>>16548658
Forbidding all masturbation is a bit extreme though. You might as well ban everything fun, it's all bad if overdone.

>>16548805
That's like if you invented something called the angry box and said people can only be angry in there and if you're angry anywhere else, that's "disordered" and a sin.

>>16548908
I didn't invent marriage. God did.

>>16548908
Your analogy is nonsensical because virtually everyone recognizes that there are times when certain actions are inappropriate. We may disagree on the details but I think we would both agree that people shouldn't just do whatever whenever.

>>16548651

Masturbation is not inherently evil because it does not contradict the categorical imperative.

It can become a vice though, because it can make you a slave to the istincts and giving you less freedom.

It'a sin because God decided it. Sin does not have anything to do with good and evil. Is eating a fruit evil? No. Sin comes from the uncomprehensible will of God.

>>16548798
Sophistry

>>16549087
[citation needed]

>>16548898
You forbid it, and then ppl only coom two or three time a week instead of constantly. If you just said, "hmm its frowned uppon" that would have no effect, like with booze.

>>16549471
>You forbid it, and then ppl only coom two or three time a week instead of constantly.
Literally only Christians are retarded enough to believe that forbidding something and people doing it anyway is some epic W.

>>16549495
Did I say I was christian you drooling retard? Reread the thread, and keep up.

>>16548651
>throwing away your energy is a sin
>not throwing away your energy is not a sin
I don't get it. What is complicated about it?