>Masturbation is worse than rape
HOLY KEK
Why was Thomas Aquinas like this?
 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
>Masturbation is worse than rape
>Masturbation is worse than rape
HOLY KEK
Why was Thomas Aquinas like this?
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Aquinas.
There's no need to exclude yourself, bud.
I have high IQ because I understand Aquinas. Yes, in that order.
The duality of man.
The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical reader's head. There's also Aquinas' nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Thomas Aquinas truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Tom's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as the Angelic Doctor's genius unfolds itself inside their philosophy textbooks. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Thomas Aquinas tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
Aquinas was a drooling moron. Pretending otherwise leads you to cognitive dissonance and disappointment.
Talking like this is why I want to kill gaytheists
Iirc, he goes as far as to say that masturbation is even worse than homosexuality and bestiality.
Honestly, reading the parts of his work that deal with ethics is like watching an AI try to understand human morality and fail spectacularly. Typical christcuck brainrot.
He did not consider masturbation worse than homosexuality and bestiality. He just considered them all sins against God.
> [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).
I actually like this. I hate liberal pagancucks like you who put consent above everything. The reason why LGBT and all that shit is so prevalent today is because consent won the moral argument.
>He just considered them all sins against God.
How exactly does masturbation harm the god of Israel?
Your semen belongs to YHWH, goy
Yeah but why is non-reproductive sex bad though?
Cause it helps to justify homosexuality so we have to pretend its bad
In the marital act, a man and a woman become, as it were, co-workers with God in creating a new human soul, made in the image and likeness of God, which will live forever. As such, it is a sacred act.
However, our desires have been knocked all out of true by the Fall, and in particular, and in some special way, our sexual desires.
A man's erection, and the act of ejaculation have a distinct teleological purpose -- to plant the seed, and create new life.
This is a God-given ability, not a chance byproduct of evolutionary processes. When used contrary to that purpose, it is, accordingly, a grave sin. In the case of sodomy, it is an especially perverse action -- almost a mockery of the marital act. In the case of masturbation, it imposes psychological damage -- the sin becomes its own punishment, as it were, in the way it becomes compulsive, and traps the mind in a debilitating, unreal world of impossible sexual fantasy.
What about marital sex not for the purposes of reproduction?
Google "Humanae Vitae" and read it. About 15 pages.
>masturbation, it imposes psychological damage
It doesn't just damage you, it damages the family as well. My grandfather made porn for the mob back in the 70s. My parents were also porn addicts, due to their parents' lives. They left a vhs in the vcr and I accidentally pressed the play button when I went to watch Saturday morning cartoons when I was six. I've struggled with this damage and the resulting vice since I was in 6th grade thanks to them and this demonic presence they invited into the home and thus my life. I've forgiven them, but it still hurts that they allowed this to happen to me through their carelessness. I've been porn-free for a few years, but once or twice a year I've given in to the "unclean vice," even after coming back to the Church.
>traps the mind in a debilitating, unreal world of impossible sexual fantasy
Yes, I escape there where I'm lonely. Not necessarily sexual anymore, but just imagining my crush there with me, cuddling or whatever. I'm getting better at telling myself "no" as soon as I start, but I've done it for so long now, that it's deeply ingrained and very difficult. I don't even realize I'm doing it until after I start the fantasy.
I thank God every morning for granting me the grace of knowledge of my faults and the wisdom to understand how to change. I'm the only Catholic left in my family, the ones on my mother's side all apostatized. My father's side was protestarded. It makes it harder because I have no real temporal support. It also doesn't help that I'm a woman, these types of sins seem more taboo for us.
>Not necessarily sexual anymore, but just imagining my crush there with me, cuddling or whatever.
What's bad about that? That's not lust, it's just ordinary longing for human connection and affection.
Because the cuddling fantasy can lead to thoughts of it progressing further due to my messed-up brain and thus puts me in the near-occasion of sin.
Teaching you that thoughts in your own head can be immoral in and of themselves is abuse.
It is abusive and it's what Jesus himself taught about lustful thoughts as adultery. Ever go through a divorce for the kids, money, just different personalities that don't jive? Jesus taught it's only ok to divorce in cases of adultery which again according to Jesus, includes even just having sexual thoughts about anybody than your spouse.
I mean for someone who claimed only one sin can justify divorce it's a pretty fricking broad definition that would cause every marriage to dissolve.
Not the person you replied to, but somehow I never noticed that. That's uproariously funny
>hurr durr no thoughts are immoral and it's abuse if you say otherwise
Are you seriously this moronic?
Thoughts THEMSELVES are not immoral. There are certainly thoughts that it's immoral to act on, but the thought itself is morally neutral, because it doesn't actually do anything in the world.
You need a husband so you can have sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation.
>for the sole purpose of procreation
Different anon replying.
It doesn't have to be, and in fact should not be for the "sole purpose" of procreation.
The problem arises when people *separate* the unitive from the procreative aspects of the conjugal act, through contraception, onanism, etc.
>The problem arises when people *separate* the unitive from the procreative aspects of the conjugal act, through contraception, onanism, etc.
So fastidious. Who do you think you are? I know! A prurient and botched weakling.
>you need a husband
I know I do but I hate social media/online dating and due to my past as a ~~*feminist*~~ am not going to approach a man. So, I wait for God to determine when the time is right. I also view this as a penitential time for all the evil I did before I came back to the Church. God is giving me the gift of solitude to further develop my prayer/interior life while I wait.
In the end..if you're happy and peaceful, satisfied with one's self...is all that matters.
From one woman to another, I hope you can see through the mental poison these people are feeding you some day. Abrahamic religion has been used primarily as an institution of dominance and control against us.
>institution of dominance
I used to be a raging radical feminist, and before that, a liberal feminist. I know all your arguments regardless of which side you're on. I've read all the literature, from Wollstonecraft to ~~*Dworkin*~~ to studying the archives of the Red Stockings. Coincidentally, it was a self-confessed troony and "feminist", Camille Paglia, who sparked the light of reason about that whole "domination" argument, specifically regarding rape.
I got black-out drunk in college and ended up fornicating with a guy whom I wouldn't have chosen to fornicate with had I been sober. He told me I could sleep in his room and I woke up to him fondling me. I did not tell him to stop and continued. When I asked my feminist friends why I felt like it was my fault for putting myself in that situation (i.e. loss of reason around a bunch of men, with no man there to protect me or tell me not to do such a stupid thing), they said it wasn't my fault and that he raped me, despite me knowing that I could have chosen to not get black-out drunk around a bunch of men who are physically stronger than me and looking to get laid. I then found Camille's work and she made this same point when criticizing "date rape" in one of her essays. All of my feminist reasoning and hatred of men started to break down after that.
You just like to think of yourself as a victim and actually remove personal agency from women in the process. It's actual the least empowering philosophy you could argue in terms of respecting women. The Catholic Church actually protected women's innocence and femininity by placing high value on virginity and marriage. This protected women from evil men, whereas you want to open them up to every form of debauchery and debasement.
>The Catholic Church actually protected women's innocence and femininity by placing high value on virginity and marriage. This protected women from evil men, whereas you want to open them up to every form of debauchery and debasement.
Grossly retrogressive outlook. I don't need anyone to protect and safeguard my womanhood. It's my duty. I'm not a frail and impotent wretch.
>I'm not a frail and impotent wretch.
Based, let’s decriminalize rape (wouldn’t even rape troonys tho)
>I don't need anyone to protect and safeguard my womanhood
>I'm not a frail and impotent wretch
but also
>men created an institution of dominance
Pick one, moron. If women were the same as men physically, the latter would have never happened in the first place. You are a delusion scold and no one cares about your hysterical ranting, regardless of how loud you scream. No one cared when I was of the same mindset either, the only solace came from the pats-on-the-back from my ~~*feminist*~~ echochamber comrades.
>dominance
Frailty and precarity underlie all efforts to dominate. This is self-evident.
>was of the same mindset
Don't kid yourself, hun.
>the only solace came from the pats-on-the-back from my ~~*feminist*~~ echochamber comrades.
Your circumstances are entirely dissimilar to mine. I don't need anyone's avowal.
>hun
You have to go back.
What?
There it is, the condescending, passive-aggressive feminist "empowerment," simultaneously sidestepping rational argument or refutation. At first you tried to lump us together as the collective Woman who must unit against the Man, thinking you would "educate" the ignorant Catholic woman, and when I bring up inconsistencies or disagree, you give up and resort to this childish display. Are you always this lazy when trying to convert people to the cause, sister?
>lump us together as the collective Woman who must unit against the Man,
My mode is individualistic. I don't comprise any collective.
>Are you always this lazy when trying to convert people to the cause, sister?
I don't bother with that.
breasts or gtfo
Lazy argument.
breasts or gtfo
No.
>rational argument or refutation
Certain polemics nullify rational discourse. Why should a woman seek out the approval of feminists or of any other aggregate? It only breeds conflict.
>Certain polemics nullify rational discourse.
Or rather, they don't merit it.
>certain polemics nullify rational discourse
You're also a lazy polemicist. Nothing you've written even comes close to doing a sufficient job of either.
That's your view. What have you supplied? Farts.
>You just like to think of yourself as a victim
Calling yourself out, eh?
>I used to be a raging radical feminist, and before that, a liberal feminist. I know all your arguments regardless of which side you're on. I've read all the literature, from Wollstonecraft to ~~*Dworkin*~~ to studying the archives of the Red Stockings.
Have you tried getting an education and a real job instead?
>The Catholic Church actually protected women's innocence and femininity
No.
https://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gfe_rape.htm
>due to my past as a ~~*feminist*~~ am not going to approach a man
are you admitting you approached men for casual sex before and no longer do so
No, but I would flirt and ensure the men I was interested in knew I was interested in them, using innuendo and other tactics so it was blatantly obvious. All but one (i.e.
) of my seven fornication partners were "boyfriends."
>seven
>means it’s actually sixteen
Disgusting, at this point consider becoming a prostitute full time to save other women from ruin
Isn't that promoting a rather dim view of men? It's as if to say 'oh the poor things can't control themselves, they NEED something to slake their lusts on because they can't choose to restrain it'. If men are really so incapable of self-control, maybe it should be women running society.
Femanon, the past is the past. My situation is a little different as a guy but I get where you're coming from as its something I've struggled/struggle with too. My advice is don't worry too much about your past - He won't send you a partner that can't forgive it.
Also, with regard to prayer, may I recommend a chotki, or the Jesus Christ Prayer in general? Personally I find it very comforting even moreso than the rosary, please don't hurt me anons, and the simplicity of it, for me at least, means its easier to rush to when I need to pull my mind from something else.
>chotki
I actually do 33 Jesus Prayers sometimes during adoration, but I will look into getting one. When I need something quick or can't do the rosary (which I definitely should do more often), I repeat the St. Michael Prayer or sing the Credo. Also meditating on our Lord's Passion helps; when I feel lonely, I imagine I'm with Him on the cross, when I get the urge to feel pleasure, I imagine him being given gall to quench his thirst. Visualizing Him going through all of those stages of His Passion brings me to tears of his love for us and helps to remind me of our final end. God bless, anon, Kyrie Eleison.
>I imagine I'm with Him on the cross
How irreverent of you.
not that I'm on the cross, but that I'm with him while he's there. poor choice of words on my part. I don't imagine myself like overlapping Him or have replaced Him.
>poor choice of words on my part
I agree. All of your declarations are unsound.
I should spend more time on the Passion, actually. Thank you. Tangentially related, I have found that some meditation on death and mortality each day helps, too. It is both motivating and comforting. When I am feeloing down it is a reminder that there is limited time to do the things I wish to do - see various things, have various experiences, so on and so on. And so I must get on and do them. All of that though must be tempered with the knowledge that when its time to get off the ride, I have no say in the matter, and I *will* be removed. And thus I must behave accordingly.
Regarding relationships, I would remind you to keep yourself open. That is not to say bat eyelashes at every guy that isn't wearing a "X SEMINARY CLASS OF 202X" shirt, but do make sure others at least have some opportunity to say hello. As a man, it can be difficult sometimes to tell if a woman is interested or simply just a sort of bubbly personality. It takes, to mix idoms, two to tango, but leave room for Jesus.
Enjoy your self-immolation, moron.
If you can manage it, daily Communion is a great help in spiritual healing (as is the sacrament of confession). Jesus is the great healer. Blessings, anon. I wish you well.
PS: If you haven't already read it, I would highly recommend the book Divine Mercy in My Soul by Sr. Faustina. It's *very* inspiring. Also, the Divine Mercy chaplet prayer that is taught in that book is a great blessing.
She needs a boyfriend, not mental handcuffs.
The vice of sex addiction is the equivalent of mental and spiritual handcuffs; with the sacraments and prayer made in the love of Christ as the key to freedom.
Sex is a necessity, not an addiction.
Dont try to strawman me, lets keep our eyes on the ball here.
If you need to get off, and you dont have somebody to "help" you with that, you have to rub one out, you have no choice, you will cave in eventually because the hormones and the body needs the release.
Even if you have a husband, and he cant make you cum, you will need eventually to cum, so he'll perform oral or use his fingers.
The only way to cure hunger is too eat, not pray to imaginary beings.
nah
>daily communion
There's not one that fits into my work schedule or I would. I go to adoration for an hour every Saturday, I've been thinking about going every day for 15 minutes to pray the rosary. But, I'm still working on being able to say the Angelus thrice per day, morning/evening prayers, and prayers before meals.
>Divine Mercy
I don't have anything against the DM, but I'm more of a Sacred Heart devotion type of gal. I do often thank Our Lord for his mercy though, I am soooo grateful for that.
>I'm more of a Sacred Heart devotion type of gal
Fair enough. God bless you.
>Yes, I escape there where I'm lonely. Not necessarily sexual anymore, but just imagining my crush there with me, cuddling
Based schizo incel
Damn that sucks. Wanna DM?
>our desires have been knocked all out of true by the Fall, and in particular, and in some special way, our sexual desires.
Speak for yourself.
playing with intestines isnt sex nor a sexuality. just vice.
>why is non-reproductive sex bad
>playing with intestines isn't sex
Christians must divorce their wives, as they are already married to strawmen.
>is because consent won the moral argument.
Good, that's a far better method of approaching sexuality than "these ignorant ancients wrote this down in a book 2000 years ago so this is right." The latter is literal caveman logic. People are gonna continue to abandon your fairy tales, seethe harder.
>moral argument
Why should any moral argument defer to your prescriptive and arbitrary tenets? You've no right to decree how others should conduct themselves. Be gone.
by that logic I have every right to rape you and you cant say a thing abt it
>I have every right to rape you
Try me. Your extrapolation is indefensible. Rape is unanimously understood to be a reprehensible act by anyone with rudimentary discernment. It's common sense.
ah so you agree that other people can decree how one is to behave? and seeing as you didnt call me a homosexual, breasts or gtfo
It's common sense. You don't have to be a religious zealot in order to determine that rape and abuse are injurious to all parties involved.
oh, so you just object to "religious zealots" telling you what to do, where do you draw the line? what's right and what's wrong? I suspect it has a lot to do with whether it makes you feel the warm and fuzzys and if you have to apply it objectively to yourself or not
>what's right and what's wrong?
Anything that effects harm upon another is to be dispensed with.
thats a decent start. I think you need some nuance,, and I have no idea what you mean by "other". a glib pronouncement made by a child really
>a glib pronouncement made by a child really
Give me a break.
Another not other. I'm alluding to any subject I may come upon.
>any subject I may come upon
holy keck
last one
breasts or gtfo
and breasts or gtfo
>nature
It's a principle. Not a personalistic intelligence capable of apprehending so-called oversights.
>I actually like this.
Even the Catholic Church disagrees with this today.
The Church doesn't disagree w/Aquinas's analysis of sexual sin.
>even the Catholic Church disagrees with this today
Wrong. Liberal, nouvelle théologie types and Jesuits disagrees with this, as they do most of Scholasticism/Neo-Scholasticism.
The catechism says that while its still considered a grave sin, extenuating factors often reduce its severity to a large degree.
Rape does not have a similar caveat.
"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." (P.g. 2352)
>your penis must go inside vegana, that's its purpose
>why yes we don't use ours, that's why we dress like trannies
The opinions of the RCC ceased to matter after Vatican II.
Calling masturbation an unnatural vice is like calling anger an unnatural sin.
>calling anger an unnatural sin.
In ancient times the Essenes believed that. Today it's Mormons.
I get where he is coming from but that is still a really sperglord take on ethics holy shit.
I would argue he is a fricking dumbass because he does not go into the psychological consequences of rape in that women might end up doing more harm to society and their children. A society of damaged people who are not helped are likely going to engage in sins because they see that the perpetrators are not being punished.
Honestly I know masturbation is bad but sometimes ill just do it to get to sleep. Not to mention the israelites fricking lied and said regular masturbation was fine and prevented cancer. I blame god for not protecting me from the lies of the israelites and leading me into dependance.
Where was god when I was forced against my will into a israelite dominated culture and education system to be programmed with unhealthy habits?
I would argue theology and advice from people not from 2010 or later is almost completely useless because the government was weaponized neuroscience and mind control technology.
Rape is worse than masturbation because it is an act of violence
I understand where he is coming from.
Good post. The teleological argument seems very convincing to me.
>In the case of sodomy, it is an especially perverse action -- almost a mockery of the marital act.
This also makes sense and is a very strong argument against sodomy. I think I've finally understood it. It is a literal satanic inversion of regular sexual intercourse between a male and a female, the complete opposite in all aspects and a rejection of the natural order. Once you understand it this way, it's hard to see it as anything else actually. This is exactly how the great antagonist force operates, it fits the pattern.
>natural order
Natural order is neither personalistic nor affective.
memes are forged in the past
Unnatural? How are rape, adultery, seduction, and masturbation unnatural? All are found in nonhuman mammals.
Nature in this context is what is in accordance with creation. Man was created with the power to overcome sin, so sinning means you are betraying your true nature, which is to live according to the Word of God.
I'm not saying this is all 100% true, but this is probably what Aquinas meant when he said nature.
In that case he's really using the term "true" arbitrarily here.
>masturbation is worse than rape because rape might create a rape baby
Holy frick I hate religious "people" so much.
>Honestly, reading the parts of his work that deal with ethics is like watching an AI try to understand human morality and fail spectacularly
I imagine that is how a dog understands a doorknob as well.
tbh dogs can open certain kinds of doorknobs, it's really dangerous when they learn how to do it as they usually also associate opening doors when someone knocks or presses the doorbell.
Aquinas was a papist, not a Christian.
and you're a moron, not a Christian
you have to try again even before attempting, btw
Wrong I'm a bible believer.
>I'm a bible believer
Reprehensible.
>According to Erigena, there are four main species of nature:
1) that which creates and is not created
2) that which creates and is created
3) that which does not create and is created
4) that which neither creates nor is created
The first species of nature refers to Divine Nature (i.e. God).
Is this too discursive for you?
>t- varg
because masturbation deforms the soul through corruption without consequence thus if you allow it to grow youll have an illness that wont stop until it kills you
rape on the other hand has an instant consequence and you learn from it pretty quickly
>rape on the other hand has an instant consequence
moron
i feel terrible after each fap, and i still do it knowing i will feel terrible bc im such a fricking addict
If i don't rally my strength now to rid myself of this demon I know it's going to fricking kill me over the next 10 years
t. 24 year old coomer
dont care, didnt ask
>implying Thomas had the bizarre contractual definition of rape that modern sexual "ethics" uses.
imagine trying to explain to him that contemporary people also believe you can rape your wife
>t. Convicted felon
Its not hard to figure out that rape is rape unless you have a sub 90IQ
>Rape is Rape Duh!
>Also I was deeply confused in high school english by the poem Rape of the Lock
brown people are a crime against the english langauge.
Strawmanning isn't an argument.
>"""langauge"""
Did they not teach you remedial classes in prison? Its spelled "language" you rape-ape.
A family could sue for rape of their daughter if they did not consent to their boy friend and they had sex outside of marriage.
There are still seduction laws on the books, females being morally and legally autonomous is still very new to humanity.
Of fricking course it's possible to rape your wife, you fricking rape apologist.
No it isn't, because that's not logical
How is it not logical? Unless you think you own your wife as property.
I don't recall marriage being a contract to have any kind of sex, anywhere, at any time... (but only for the husband)
can you point out the source for your doctrine?
>I don't recall marriage being a contract to have any kind of sex, anywhere, at any time...
It's an emanation from the penumbra of the words "for better or worse," thus an implied term of the contract.
The idea of “raping your wife” would be as absurd to him as the idea of raping yourself. You already possess your wife, you cannot seize or debauch her.
You can't own human beings, that's called slavery.
You obviously can own human beings, that's why that word that you mentioned exists
>but only for the husband
The Catholic Church historically held that a woman had the right to rape her husband outside certain circumstances. This is apparently no longer the case, as I've heard Catholic theologians condemn marital rape in both directions.
It’s not rape. If her husband was in a coma, she could stick an electrode up his ass to get inseminated by him. For frick sake shitlib ethicists think it’s fine for her to starve him to death but not to get impregnated by him. Total brain dead ideology.
You seem to get irrationally upset by the made up people in your head. Can you list even 5 ethicists who suggest that's permissible?
>For frick sake shitlib ethicists think it’s fine for her to starve him to death
Like who?
>a woman had the right to rape her husband
Finally! You are speaking sense.
Rape is not a crime against the woman but a property crime against the owner of the woman.
You cannot legitimately own another human being. Any claim to ownership of another human being is not morally legitimate.
I cant stand Aquinas because he "stole" greek philosophy and inserted God of Israel who hates gays and sorcerers into it.
Its the same thing muslims and probably hinduists do.
They use fundamental questions of existence and insert their Gods into it.
>The universe exists, is complex and big..
>Where does it all come from?
Insert your God here _____
he also steals muslim theology and tries to make it fit catholicism
They also stole from paganism, the rituals and whatnot, they even "stole" the greek music for their churches.
People were extremely moronic back then.
He's autistic.
Nobody can read Aquinas and honestly tell me he isn't a big sperg.
That's insanity. Raping someone would be super wicked
think of the fricked up porn you watch, you would be to ashamed to do this in real life even to a person you were assaulting.
You know he's right anon...
What the hell kind of moon logic is that?
raping one person is terrible, cultivating a culture of masturbation incentivizes kinkier and kinkier sex which breeds legions of rapists.
Why do degenerates never think about more than themselves?
Kink culture generally has a lot of emphasis on proper understanding of consent, in my experience.
Degenerate porn didn't exist in his era
That's no excuse.
ITT: Hellbound wankers
How did IQfy end up housing so many moronic Christian moralgays? Is it just contrarians and election tourists?
Why are abrahamic religions so divided on the rules of their own holy books? Why do they need professional interpreters like Aquinas just to make sense of their arbitrary texts?
The Bible doesn't even say fapping is sinful. It's completely made up by morons making a liar of Jesus when he said his yolk is easy and his burden is light.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
GET WRECKED ONAN