Not really. It was God killing a guy named Onan for doing his pull-out game instead of nutting in his wife. It “spilled on the ground” so it says and it angered God. Other than that, and in the most explicit terms, no.
And it wasn’t even about it going on the ground or whatever it was about him failing his duty to impregnate his brother’s widow, which was expected of him. Sounds bizarre today but due to the rules of inheritance at that time, it was considered a service to the widow.
Not homosexuality as we would understand it. The Hebrew Bible doesn’t understand consensual male-on-male sex as being a thing. It’s envisioning the Bronze Age practice of raping men you defeat in war. The idea of someone being homosexual and having consensual gay sex would be alien to the ancient Hebrews.
People being attracted to the same gender have always existed, but the social identity of being “homosexual” or “gay” has not always existed. The ancient Hebrews would not have understood it to be possible for men to have consensual desires for each other. Often times throughout western history, male same sex desire was understood as an “excess” of sexual desire. It wasn’t understood that you could be exclusively attracted to the same sex - the idea did not exist in our cultural milieu until the 19th century.
Christianity is not the only religion that is anti-gay. A Buddhist might have a similar understanding to that western ancient/medieval understand of homosexuality I described earlier - that it is a harmful excess of sexual desire and hampers one’s progress towards separateness from the world. Confucianism would see exclusively same sex attraction as being harmful towards one’s obligation to continuing a family line.
There is nothing in the Dharma about homosexuality and Buddhist are generally accepting of it. Confucianism is not against it either, just the concept of not procreating as your duty to family.
Christians, on the other hand, have been putting homosexuals to death for a long time. I think my original point stands.
I mean, God being mad that you’re spilling your jizz on the ground instead of inside of a woman to impregnate her, it is fairly straight conclusion to masturbation being no-no imo
It has nothing to do with masturbation or even pulling out, it was about a weird inheritance law of the time, and about not obeying god.
Once she was pregnant (and thus could inherit, or some ancient nonsense like that) Onan would have been free to jack it off as much as he wanted to (not that he seemed to want to, as I understand it what wanted was to keep fucking the sister in law, which he wouldn’t have been able to do after she got pregnant, since getting her pregnant was the only excuse for fucking her in the first place).
Do you have some materila to support that interpretation? Because a straight reading of the part imo does make it about wasting seed insted of procreating and the interpretations I can find go with that interpretation.
It seems to be a contentious issue, though it is easy for me to see how it is viewed as being about masturbation and sex for fun
Because a straight reading of the part imo does make it about wasting seed insted of procreating and the interpretations I can find go with that interpretation.
History? Mesopotamian history? It wouldn’t be an individual’s personal reaction to one of the english translations of the text.
There’s a great deal of information, especially from greek and persian sources that describe the rules and laws of the region during biblical times. Like the septanguit was a major greek translation that entered judean laws and customs to greek analysis.
And then we have early roman history that conquered the region and documented the rules of local religions/cults.
Again, it isn’t derived from a vibe check of plain text like when SCOTUS overturns human rights.
I read it in Finnish. And the different versions I checked (for English too) do try to follow the intended meaning instead of straight up literal translation. Don’t know about “SCOTUS” stuff.
The understanding of it talking about masturbation is pretty damn old and there’s a reason even scholars disagree about this stuff.
I get it. I had meant ‘modern’ more than anything and ‘english’ was the convenient assumption.
I was trying note along the idea of how we only know Spartan history from Athenian accounts of Sparta, not Spartans. If all we had was specifically a christian interpretation of the texts then yeah, conclusions can be as varied as the reader. If we interpret the bible through contemporary historical observations the importance of the lessons and stories of the bible are provided context.
The christian traditions around the bible and the historical context through which the bible was written and interpreted are very different.
But that isn’t to undermine or remove the fact that there is a long tradition of interpreting these passages as to include masturbation. (If not the concept of sodomy at large.) But to me that’s likewise as understandably contexualized.
IIRC, it was more about a guy refusing to sleep with his dead brothers wife (now his) and very situational. So he’s getting told off for not sleeping with his obligatory wife, and the quote is something along the lines of it would be better for you to spill your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it on the ground
It wasn’t even about masturbation really, that was just a slick line
Does the Bible even masturbation is wrong?
Not really. It was God killing a guy named Onan for doing his pull-out game instead of nutting in his wife. It “spilled on the ground” so it says and it angered God. Other than that, and in the most explicit terms, no.
And it wasn’t even about it going on the ground or whatever it was about him failing his duty to impregnate his brother’s widow, which was expected of him. Sounds bizarre today but due to the rules of inheritance at that time, it was considered a service to the widow.
Came to say, Onan was commanded to impregnate her. The story has zero to do with masturbation.
Neither atheists nor believers get the basic mythology of their region.
Nu uh, next thing you are going to say is “If a man also lie with mankind” isn’t about homosexuality.
Not homosexuality as we would understand it. The Hebrew Bible doesn’t understand consensual male-on-male sex as being a thing. It’s envisioning the Bronze Age practice of raping men you defeat in war. The idea of someone being homosexual and having consensual gay sex would be alien to the ancient Hebrews.
Homosexuality has always existed. It was never an issue until Christians made it one.
People being attracted to the same gender have always existed, but the social identity of being “homosexual” or “gay” has not always existed. The ancient Hebrews would not have understood it to be possible for men to have consensual desires for each other. Often times throughout western history, male same sex desire was understood as an “excess” of sexual desire. It wasn’t understood that you could be exclusively attracted to the same sex - the idea did not exist in our cultural milieu until the 19th century.
Christianity is not the only religion that is anti-gay. A Buddhist might have a similar understanding to that western ancient/medieval understand of homosexuality I described earlier - that it is a harmful excess of sexual desire and hampers one’s progress towards separateness from the world. Confucianism would see exclusively same sex attraction as being harmful towards one’s obligation to continuing a family line.
There is nothing in the Dharma about homosexuality and Buddhist are generally accepting of it. Confucianism is not against it either, just the concept of not procreating as your duty to family.
Christians, on the other hand, have been putting homosexuals to death for a long time. I think my original point stands.
I think it was his brother’s wife.
Honestly, pornhub needs to do a whole series of Bible porn.
maybe its doing it 2 woman at once? or being unfaithful?
I mean, God being mad that you’re spilling your jizz on the ground instead of inside of a woman to impregnate her, it is fairly straight conclusion to masturbation being no-no imo
It has nothing to do with masturbation or even pulling out, it was about a weird inheritance law of the time, and about not obeying god.
Once she was pregnant (and thus could inherit, or some ancient nonsense like that) Onan would have been free to jack it off as much as he wanted to (not that he seemed to want to, as I understand it what wanted was to keep fucking the sister in law, which he wouldn’t have been able to do after she got pregnant, since getting her pregnant was the only excuse for fucking her in the first place).
Do you have some materila to support that interpretation? Because a straight reading of the part imo does make it about wasting seed insted of procreating and the interpretations I can find go with that interpretation.
It seems to be a contentious issue, though it is easy for me to see how it is viewed as being about masturbation and sex for fun
History? Mesopotamian history? It wouldn’t be an individual’s personal reaction to one of the english translations of the text.
There’s a great deal of information, especially from greek and persian sources that describe the rules and laws of the region during biblical times. Like the septanguit was a major greek translation that entered judean laws and customs to greek analysis.
And then we have early roman history that conquered the region and documented the rules of local religions/cults.
Again, it isn’t derived from a vibe check of plain text like when SCOTUS overturns human rights.
I read it in Finnish. And the different versions I checked (for English too) do try to follow the intended meaning instead of straight up literal translation. Don’t know about “SCOTUS” stuff.
The understanding of it talking about masturbation is pretty damn old and there’s a reason even scholars disagree about this stuff.
Just saying.
I get it. I had meant ‘modern’ more than anything and ‘english’ was the convenient assumption.
I was trying note along the idea of how we only know Spartan history from Athenian accounts of Sparta, not Spartans. If all we had was specifically a christian interpretation of the texts then yeah, conclusions can be as varied as the reader. If we interpret the bible through contemporary historical observations the importance of the lessons and stories of the bible are provided context.
The christian traditions around the bible and the historical context through which the bible was written and interpreted are very different.
But that isn’t to undermine or remove the fact that there is a long tradition of interpreting these passages as to include masturbation. (If not the concept of sodomy at large.) But to me that’s likewise as understandably contexualized.
Sorts of, if you take it out of context
IIRC, it was more about a guy refusing to sleep with his dead brothers wife (now his) and very situational. So he’s getting told off for not sleeping with his obligatory wife, and the quote is something along the lines of it would be better for you to spill your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it on the ground
It wasn’t even about masturbation really, that was just a slick line
Maybe not, but the Bible does say a lot about lust.
But what if it’s not about lust, and mostly a “I’ve got about 5 minutes and am pretty bored”.