Nocturnal Emission or wet dreams ok lang ba?

vril wrote:where does erection fall into? Is erection evil?

This is a highly intellectual question and requires deep analysis.

Based on Yidda's framework of three evils, erection cannot be considered as objective evil because it not causing harm, unless de-hymenization actually causes pain and assuming that that pain is actually unwanted. If it does cause harm, then it is objective evil.

Is it moral evil? Again, it depends. If it is used to pursue God's commandment to go forth and multiply, then it is a moral good. And more of it is more moral. Now if you use it for unintended purposes such as touching it or even worse... (censored out...), then it may be morally evil. If you have a license to hold it (parang baril yan eh, may license din), because you married the owner of it, then perhaps it is not morally evil and may even be morally good. But like any licensed owner, you have to use properly, in the right places, time, and manner.

Is it metaphysical evil? I don't know. The terms sounds so hifalutin to me. But if metaphysical means an indication of our humanity, then, yes, an erection is sadly a metaphysical evil.

Thus, by a score of 2-1, this is a tie. (why it is a tie? Well, I used Pooch's style of arithmetic; i.e., I simply decide by ignoring my numbers )

Hindi ka naman fully-aware pag nagka-wet dreams ka dahil tulog ka eh, so hindi yun kasalanan, therefore from this point of view OK lang yun.

But the thing is, bakit ka nga ba nagkaroon ng ganun? Kasi nakokondisyon na ang isip sa mga nababasa, napapanood, nararanasan, at imaginations. Ang mga ito ay nadadala sa subconscious mind, at lumalabas bilang panaginip. Wala yatang nagka-wet dreams na inosente, o kung meron man, bihirang bihira lang. Usually yata ang nakaranas ng ganun ay may mga preconditions sa isip.

adanedhel wrote:Hindi ka naman fully-aware pag nagka-wet dreams ka dahil tulog ka eh, so hindi yun kasalanan, therefore from this point of view OK lang yun.

But the thing is, bakit ka nga ba nagkaroon ng ganun? Kasi nakokondisyon na ang isip sa mga nababasa, napapanood, nararanasan, at imaginations. Ang mga ito ay nadadala sa subconscious mind, at lumalabas bilang panaginip. Wala yatang nagka-wet dreams na inosente, o kung meron man, bihirang bihira lang. Usually yata ang nakaranas ng ganun ay may mga preconditions sa isip.

May punto ka diyan brad sa redmark

Ibig sabihin brad pag dahil dyan sa preconditions kaya nagkaroon ka ng wet dreams, dapat ka ng mag-alala sa kasalanan mo. From this point of view hindi OK ang wet dreams.

Oo nga meron pa palang catch at pwede palang maging sin ang wet dream. Ang gulo kuya.

Teka brad parang naging magulo ang naging tugon mo sa dalawang post mo, tingnan mo iyong redmark.

adanedhel wrote:Hindi ka naman fully-aware pag nagka-wet dreams ka dahil tulog ka eh, so hindi yun kasalanan, therefore from this point of view OK lang yun.

adanedhel wrote:Ibig sabihin brad pag dahil dyan sa preconditions kaya nagkaroon ka ng wet dreams, dapat ka ng mag-alala sa kasalanan mo. From this point of view hindi OK ang wet dreams.

Ano ba iyong preconditions na tinutukoy mo iyon bang nanood muna ng malalaswa then napanaginipan ganoon ba?

Ito ba iyong preconditions na tinutukoy mo?

adanedhel wrote:But the thing is, bakit ka nga ba nagkaroon ng ganun? Kasi nakokondisyon na ang isip sa mga nababasa, napapanood, nararanasan, at imaginations. Ang mga ito ay nadadala sa subconscious mind, at lumalabas bilang panaginip. Wala yatang nagka-wet dreams na inosente, o kung meron man, bihirang bihira lang. Usually yata ang nakaranas ng ganun ay may mga preconditions sa isip.

Oo nga, bakit hindi malilinaw kung ang wet dream ba ay completely sin-free or may strings attached pa yan. I think we have just discovered the most exciting concept in the religious world: the wet dream. It is sin-free and yet it is as hot as fornication itself, if not hotter. And it is disease-free and cost-free. Must be cholesterol-free and non-allergenic too

Can I have a dozen, please?

Bro Harballah what I mean dun sa una is assuming na inosente talaga ang nagkaroon ng wet-dreams..so hindi sya nagkasala. Pero sa pangalawang sitwasyon kung saan nagkakaroon sya ng panaginip na malalaswa dahil sa mga pinapanood, binabasa, at ginagawa, dapat ka ng mag-alala sa mga kasalanan mo.

adanedhel wrote:Bro Harballah what I mean dun sa una is assuming na inosente talaga ang nagkaroon ng wet-dreams..so hindi sya nagkasala. Pero sa pangalawang sitwasyon kung saan nagkakaroon sya ng panaginip na malalaswa dahil sa mga pinapanood, binabasa, at ginagawa, dapat ka ng mag-alala sa mga kasalanan mo.

Thanks sa paliwanag bro, nais ko rin kasing malinaw mong mai-detalye upang sa ganoon ay mauunawaan ng lahat ang post mo.

Sa madaling salita ay hindi nagkakasala ang pagkakaroon ng wet dreams na hindi nagkakaroon ng dahilan (like watching bold movies, pornographic, magazines and etc.)

Just incase na doon sa pangalawang sitwasyon ay nagawa nila brad, malaking kasalanan ba ito o maliit lamang.

Peace bro!

adanedhel wrote:Bro Harballah what I mean dun sa una is assuming na inosente talaga ang nagkaroon ng wet-dreams..so hindi sya nagkasala. Pero sa pangalawang sitwasyon kung saan nagkakaroon sya ng panaginip na malalaswa dahil sa mga pinapanood, binabasa, at ginagawa, dapat ka ng mag-alala sa mga kasalanan mo.

Sa paliwanag na ito, hindi talaga ang wet dream ang kasalanan. Sa hapon pa lang dahil sa daydreaming, internet o di kaya sa texting ay nagkaroon na ng di halal na pag-iisip at sa mga oras na yaon ay may kasalanan na. Wala doon sa wet dreams mismo. Tama po ba?

Ateo wrote:


This is a highly intellectual question and requires deep analysis.

Based on Yidda's framework of three evils, erection cannot be considered as objective evil because it not causing harm, unless de-hymenization actually causes pain and assuming that that pain is actually unwanted. If it does cause harm, then it is objective evil.

Is it moral evil? Again, it depends. If it is used to pursue God's commandment to go forth and multiply, then it is a moral good. And more of it is more moral. Now if you use it for unintended purposes such as touching it or even worse... (censored out...), then it may be morally evil. If you have a license to hold it (parang baril yan eh, may license din), because you married the owner of it, then perhaps it is not morally evil and may even be morally good. But like any licensed owner, you have to use properly, in the right places, time, and manner.

Is it metaphysical evil? I don't know. The terms sounds so hifalutin to me. But if metaphysical means an indication of our humanity, then, yes, an erection is sadly a metaphysical evil.

Thus, by a score of 2-1, this is a tie. (why it is a tie? Well, I used Pooch's style of arithmetic; i.e., I simply decide by ignoring my numbers )

Luke
{11:9} And so I say to you: Ask, and it shall be given to you. Seek, and you shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened to you.
{11:10} For everyone who asks, receives. And whoever seeks, finds. And whoever knocks, it shall be opened to him.
{11:11} So then, who among you, if he asks his father for bread, he would give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he would give him a serpent, instead of a fish?
{11:12} Or if he will ask for an egg, he would offer to him a scorpion?
{11:13} Therefore, if you, being evil, know how to give good things to your sons, how much more will your Father give, from heaven, a spirit of goodness to those who ask him?”

We are evil in the sense that we lack the infinite Goodness of God; this is metaphysical evil.

We have evil in the sense that there is harm and disorder in our lives and in our minds and hearts as an effect of sin; this is physical evil.

And we do evil whenever we sin; this is moral evil.

Yidda wrote:...
We are evil in the sense that we lack the infinite Goodness of God; this is metaphysical evil.

We have evil in the sense that there is harm and disorder in our lives and in our minds and hearts as an effect of sin; this is physical evil.

And we do evil whenever we sin; this is moral evil.

This litany of "we are evil, we have evil and we do evil" depresses me. It is coupled with calling man as fallen being, defective vessel, of sinful nature, etc. etc. Jeez, with all these depressing things putting us into an abased level, it is no wonder that we bow down to the next person who orders us to burn our child as sacrifice

Back to topic, the question is still not clarified. Are wet dreams a sin? It is unconscious, so it is not? Except when you have been imagining sexy things that afternoon before sleeping? Is it metaphysical evil? Jeez, it is getting more and more confusing. Can I rephrase the question then? If I wet my sheets during the night, can I still go to heaven? Or by having a heavenly dream, did I forfeit the real heaven?

I said before the reason why some are having this kind of experience(wet dreams) because we are in the fallen state, we are subject to certain kinds of physical evil: suffering, injury, illness, various disorders of the body, etc.

This is not sin, but it is called a type of evil because it is disorder.

Ateo wrote:


This litany of "we are evil, we have evil and we do evil" depresses me. It is coupled with calling man as fallen being, defective vessel, of sinful nature, etc. etc. Jeez, with all these depressing things putting us into an abased level, it is no wonder that we bow down to the next person who orders us to burn our child as sacrifice

Many consequences of the Fall are objective evil (a privation of good):death, concupiscence, the decay of the human body, that the human person after the Fall is more like the lower animals, and less like the holy angels, etc. I would include reproduction by sexual intercourse and menstruation among those consequences of the Fall that are a privation of the good order originally intended by God for humanity.

Now that the Fall has occurred, what is less perfect in itself, has been made more perfect by God. With death, which is a consequence of the Fall and a type of evil (privation of good); Christ has transformed death from an objective evil, a loss of the goodness of life, into the means for obtaining eternal life.

harballah wrote:
Just incase na doon sa pangalawang sitwasyon ay nagawa nila brad, malaking kasalanan ba ito o maliit lamang.

Ma-categorize siya as venial sin para sa akin, pero it is not an excuse como maliit na kasalanan ay OK lang.

Ateo wrote:
Sa paliwanag na ito, hindi talaga ang wet dream ang kasalanan. Sa hapon pa lang dahil sa daydreaming, internet o di kaya sa texting ay nagkaroon na ng di halal na pag-iisip at sa mga oras na yaon ay may kasalanan na. Wala doon sa wet dreams mismo. Tama po ba?

Tama brad, yan ang ibig kong sabihin. Although hindi sya kasalanan, it is a disorder.

adanedhel wrote:
Ma-categorize siya as venial sin para sa akin, pero it is not an excuse como maliit na kasalanan ay OK lang.

Actually sang-ayon naman ako sa inyo brother na hindi porke maliit na kasalanan ay okey lang, siyempre kasalanan parin iyon at dapat huwag ulit-ulitin.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

Yidda wrote:I said before the reason why some are having this kind of experience(wet dreams) because we are in the fallen state, we are subject to certain kinds of physical evil: suffering, injury, illness, various disorders of the body, etc.

This is not sin, but it is called a type of evil because it is disorder.

When Jesus was human, did he have metaphysical evils as well? He was fully human so did he suffer from injury, illness, emotional pain. I think he had anxiety at Gethsemane. So, did he have nocturnal emissions as well as expected for a true human? He was then metaphysically evil?

So was the Virgin Mary.

adanedhel wrote:
Ma-categorize siya as venial sin para sa akin, pero it is not an excuse como maliit na kasalanan ay OK lang.


Tama brad, yan ang ibig kong sabihin. Although hindi sya kasalanan, it is a disorder.

Venial sin? Eeek! Meron pa palang venial sin? Akala ko wala na yan venial venial na yan? And did you say that wet dreams are venial sin? So sin pala, akala ko sabi ni Yidda ay metaphysical evil lang?

magbasa nga kayo ng medical book! susmariosep! di yang puro sulat ng mga matatanda pinagbabasihan nyo ng mga analysis nyo.

you will do the world a great favor!

Did I say wet dreams mismo ang venial sin?

Seriously, Adan, meron palang mga venial sins? Ito ba yung kung kinurot mo yung tao sa halip na saksakin ay venial lang ang isampa sa iyo?

Ateo wrote:


When Jesus was human, did he have metaphysical evils as well? He was fully human so did he suffer from injury, illness, emotional pain. I think he had anxiety at Gethsemane. So, did he have nocturnal emissions as well as expected for a true human? He was then metaphysically evil?

So was the Virgin Mary.

Jesus and Mary have no sin at all, so they have no moral evil.

They are each perfect in their human nature, imperfections are a type of physical evil. But suffering is also a type of physical evil, so they both endured the physical evil of suffering in their lives.

The human nature of Jesus and of Mary are each finite, so this is metaphysical evil.

Only the Divine Nature is not metaphysically evil.

para sa akin hindi po masama ang nocturnal emmisyon o yung wet drim

ayun sa aking tiyahin na psykologist normal daw na nararanasan ito ng mga kabataan lalo na kung matagal silang di nagpapalabas ng sperm na galing sa dibdib (upps baka me natamaan) hahahaha

kung sasanguniin naman natin ang bible ito po ay kategorize sa venial sin o yung kasalanan na di ikamamatay ng kaluluwa sapagkat ito po ay hindi mo naman sinasadya kasi pag nananaginip tayo hindi natin kontrol ang mga panaginip natin

para sa akin ang nocturnal emisyon ay kasalanang di ikamamatay

Ang wet dreams po ay isang normal bodily function, dapat iexpell ang mga sperms para sa mga bagong sperms...our body was created like that, so there is no sin in it.

Ateo wrote:Seriously, Adan, meron palang mga venial sins? Ito ba yung kung kinurot mo yung tao sa halip na saksakin ay venial lang ang isampa sa iyo?

Bro its common sense. Magkaiba syempre ang crime level ng nagnakaw ng 1 peso sa 1million pesos.