T
Timothysis
Guest
So you are saying he was slain because he masturbated???
- Status
M
Matariel
Guest
T
Teflon93
Guest
Onan wanted the pleasure of sex without the obligation.
That’s another way of defining “masturbation.”
That’s another way of defining “masturbation.”
T
Timothysis
Guest
So you are totally ignoring the fact that scripture says that he “knew the children would not be his?”
And to what do you attribute his motivation being “the pleasure of sex without the obligation” when the whole purpose of the story is that he did his best to NOT raise up children to his deceased brother?
Finally, most people masturbate because they don’t have a partner to have sex with. Why would someone who obviously does have a partner choose to masturbate instead?
’
T
Teflon93
Guest
Ahem—are we to check our practical knowledge at the door when reading Scripture?So you are totally ignoring the fact that scripture says that he “knew the children would not be his?”
And to what do you attribute his motivation being “the pleasure of sex without the obligation” when the whole purpose of the story is that he did his best to NOT raise up children to his deceased brother?
Finally, most people masturbate because they don’t have a partner to have sex with. Why would someone who obviously does have a partner choose to masturbate instead?
’
Did Onan not require pleasure to achieve orgasm?
T
Timothysis
Guest
Well, apparently some check their intelligence and common sense at the door when reading scripture. Look, it’s all really pretty easy.
8Then Judah said to Onan, “(G)Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”
Onan’s “duty” was to raise up offspring to his brother.
*9Onan knew that the (H)offspring would not be his; *
Even though he would be the biological father of these children, under the law they would be recognized as his brother’s children and, thus, his brother’s inheritance would pass through them and not Onan.
so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.
How much clearer could it get than this; “in order NOT
to give offspring to his brother.”*10But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He (I)took his life also. *
So what was it that was “displeasing in the sight of the LORD?” Not that he “wasted his seed on the ground” but that he wasted his seed “in order not to give offspring to his brother.”
Consider this; a man goes to a hotel to hook up with a woman who is a known prostitute. When he gets there he finds that she isn’t there. He looks around, shrugs his shoulders, walks out and goes home. Would you say that he committed adultery against his wife? He didn’t commit any act but his intention was such that if the prostitute was there he would have done it. In the same way, Onan’s intention was to not raise up children to his brother. His wasting his seed on the ground was simply part of his intention to not do what he was supposed to. What if he would have castrated himself? Would that have not been “displeasing in the sight of the LORD?”
I think this is a wonderful example of how people project their own thoughts and ideas onto a situation where it isn’t justifiable, much like when people write about the historical Jesus. It isn’t Jesus they write about so much but their own ideas and fancies.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Well, you possess the theological virtue of rudeness in abundance, timothysis.
The Bible isn’t a rulebook.
Onan’s sin was the pursuit of his own pleasure at the expense of his sister-in-law’s and God’s will.
In other words, he valued his own satisfaction above every other consideration.
The Catholic Church does not construe the examples of sin provided in Scripture narrowly. Was David’s sin that he sent his rival for Batsheeba off to die in battle, therefore you and I may engage in adultery at will so long as we do not send our rivals off to die in battle?
Of course not.
The lust David felt for her, his covetousness, and his utter disregard for the life and dignity of his neighbor is what led him astray.
Note that Onan did not refuse to have sex with his sister-in-law.
Note that he did not stop before his own orgasm.
He in fact simply used her for his own pleasure.
Likewise, masturbation is called Onanism because it’s another form of the same thing—someone with a disordered view of sex seeking only their own pleasure, often at the expense of another’s.
God did not create the sexual organs for such sterile and pointless self-abuse.
The Bible isn’t a rulebook.
Onan’s sin was the pursuit of his own pleasure at the expense of his sister-in-law’s and God’s will.
In other words, he valued his own satisfaction above every other consideration.
The Catholic Church does not construe the examples of sin provided in Scripture narrowly. Was David’s sin that he sent his rival for Batsheeba off to die in battle, therefore you and I may engage in adultery at will so long as we do not send our rivals off to die in battle?
Of course not.
The lust David felt for her, his covetousness, and his utter disregard for the life and dignity of his neighbor is what led him astray.
Note that Onan did not refuse to have sex with his sister-in-law.
Note that he did not stop before his own orgasm.
He in fact simply used her for his own pleasure.
Likewise, masturbation is called Onanism because it’s another form of the same thing—someone with a disordered view of sex seeking only their own pleasure, often at the expense of another’s.
God did not create the sexual organs for such sterile and pointless self-abuse.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Teflon has it right on the head.
If Onan simply didn’t want to raise his brother’s children, then he could have denied his sister-in-law in bed. Instead he bedded her, and then withdrew, but only after he “reached the point of no return” so to speak. In other words, he got what he wanted… and damn everyone else.
To simply reduce this to denying his brother children is rather short-sighted.
If Onan simply didn’t want to raise his brother’s children, then he could have denied his sister-in-law in bed. Instead he bedded her, and then withdrew, but only after he “reached the point of no return” so to speak. In other words, he got what he wanted… and damn everyone else.
To simply reduce this to denying his brother children is rather short-sighted.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Ok guys, I guess I’ll just go play with my blocks and coloring books. Thank you for a totally wasted time.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Tim, while playing with your blocks, go look at what the Jewish tradition on this passage teaches as well. I’ll think you’ll find that it agrees with the Catholic tradition on this passage. As a matter of fact, I think you’ll find that 99% of all Scriptural Exegesis on this passage prior to 100 years ago was pretty much in agreement.
And think on this. If Onan’s decision was to deprive his brother of any children, why did the author need to go into such… uh… “gory details” about Onan’s actions. He could have simply said, “But Onan refused his sister in law of any children and God laid the smack-down on him”.
T
Timothysis
Guest
If you do a google search of “the sin of Onan” you will find plenty of varying thoughts and opinions. Most are like here, they fall on one side or the other (and some go on and on…). I still tend to think that it is the modern mind, along with 2000 years of religious thought and commentary, that projects personal views on the subject. Will there ever be a definitive answer? No, for the subject isn’t as black and white as some would like it to be.
It reminds me of the story of Pope St. Gregory the Great who declared that Mary Magdalene was the woman caught in adultery in the Gospels. However, many centuries later, people realized that what he was referring to was a misunderstanding on his part. Yet, for how long and even to this day do people attribute Mary Magdalene with being the woman caught in adultery? It is the same with Onan. Pulling quotes from other parts of scripture to back one’s opinion does not settle the issue. A similar example is the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Nowhere does it say that the serpent was Satan or the Devil. It wasn’t until the Christian era that commentators decided that it was Satan or Satan in the serpent that caused Adam and Eve to fall. In any event, what difference does it make since the creation story is a myth to convey sacred truths to the people of the time? Yet book after book, page after page of commentary has been written about Adam and Eve. Is all of it authoritive?
Why did Jesus have to suffer and die on the cross? There is no answer to these questions. It’s like asking why did Shakespeare say “to be or not to be” instead of “should I, or shouldn’t I?” Asserting that there is meaning in something because the author didn’t say it another way is not convincing.
It is interesting to me, though, that the Church in Humane Vitae nor in the recent cathechism do not mention Onan in regards to the inappropriateness of masturbation. I wonder why???
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Ah, Tim, I knew you’d be back!
Are you sure of your thoughts on Satan and the Garden?
I can’t access google from work, but I’d like to ask, how many of those varying opinions were prior to the 1900’s?
I’ll look at what the Church Fathers said of Onan. I’ll try and get back to you on that.
Are you sure of your thoughts on Satan and the Garden?
That’s an entirely different thread, and one that I think I can answer.
Again, I’ll look at the history of the Church’s reasoning behind Onan’s actions. Although I’m confident that the Church has used this as part of its teaching against any time of contraception, I think the words of St. Paul in Romans is more of a testament against masturbation. The Church’s teaching that “all life is good” is probably the very foundation of Her teaching against masturbation and contraception. Onan is simply one of the other pillars to prop up this teaching, though not the main one.
S
SimonArizona
Guest
Can someone explain just how Natural Family Planning or “having sex during those days in the month when the women in not fertile” is any different than contraception? The goal is the same; having sex for pleasure and that is encouraged by the Church?
S
SimonArizona
Guest
Becareful what you say; there ARE answers to these questions.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
That’s simple. Just ask any couple who have practiced NFP… but you’ll have to wait til their multitude of kids are asleep!
God can still fertilize the woman, as any NFP couple can tell you. With condoms and pills, we are playing the role of God, however.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Exactly! I’ll give Tim a hint.
The answer is found in the marriage covenant. What are the words in the vows? “Til death do us part”.
B
bilop
Guest
The problem is not “having sex for pleasure” per se.
A married couple is allowed, and encouraged, by the Church to have as much sex for pleasure or any other purpose as they want.
The key is, all the sex needs to be both unitive (loving and mutually self-giving) and procreative (open to life). Any sex act that meets both criteria is fine. One does not need the actual intent to conceive at that time.
NFP sex is both unitive and procreative. The thing that makes NFP work (when used to avoid pregnancy) is the sex they’re not having. Temporary abstention is always allowed.
God Bless
T
Timothysis
Guest
The question was rhetorical. If you can say why God decided that the way he would sanctify mankind by the incarnation, passion, death and resurrection of His only begotten Son, then you are a greater theologian than any in the history of the Church.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Having sex for the pleasure of another is quite different than having sex for one’s own pleasure, as love of oneself is different than love of one’s spouse.
T
Teflon93
Guest
You don’t seem to have read them.
Isn’t the heart of theology to understand the incarnation?
- Status