Talk:Onan

message: The sentence "Onan's crime is often misinterpreted to be masturbation but it is universally agreed among biblical scholars that Onan's death is attributed to his refusal to fulfill his obligation of levirate marriage with Tamar by committing coitus interruptus." appears twice- once in the introduction and once in the "Biblical account" section. This is redundant and interrupts the flow of the article. If no one objects, I'd like to delete the second sentence.ThisParrotIsNoMore (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You should not omit this information, especially considering that the Interpretation section of this entry cites ten references that strongly support and substantiate the claim. While there is some repetition, in the beggining section it serves the purpose of drawing the reader's attention to this encyclopedia entry.  Kruskall (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Of course, there's room for improvement or reformulations, if you don't approve of the repetition, you can reformulate the phrase in the "Interpretation section" of the entry, just keep in mind the references.  Kruskall (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated sentence

message: Another scholar who is a lawyer states that what Onan did could be rubbing his penis on Tamar's legs or hips or anal sex which prevented conception of children with the death of Onan being connected not on his act but why he did the act which was to prevent his brother's widow from conceiving thus denying his brother offspring. [9]
Does anyone else think the above sentence is retarded?
::The sentence is not retarded- The writer is perhaps not a native english speaker -you could improve it instead of slagging it .....--Tumadoireacht (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawyer?

message: "The transgression was disobeying God, not spilling his seed"... Says who? Verse 10 says that what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord. This sentence from the article is clearly an interpretation, and not even a convincing one; it's clearly not encyclopedic. Ajcounter 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that spilling seed is a transgression. Mosaic law requires that you give a child to your deceased childless brother. Onan refused, so it was displeasing in the eyes of God 73.121.228.133 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say God's mum had caught him wanking early on  and he had a downer on it ever since--Tumadoireacht (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: There's no information on the painting of Onan.  Can somebody please correct this?
:It looks like a painting by Ferdinand Hodler. Soczyczi (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's the ARtist of that picture 

message: Narrative
Onan was the second son of Judah. After God killed his older brother Er, Onan was required by the tradition of levirate marriage to marry Er's widow Tamar. According to Genesis 38:7-10, when he had sexual intercourse with Tamar he "spilt his seed upon the ground" because the resulting child would be considered his late brother's, not his. In response to the transgression of disobedience, God killed Onan too.
The statement here makes it seem as if Onan was commanded by God to be living by the Law of Moses. The Yibbum as established in the Law was generations later than Onan's time. It was Onan's father Judah that commanded Yibbum in this instance, not God. And was Onan's pretense and rape (sex by pretense) of Tamar who'd just suffered a triple pain (husband just died, he was childless and she's still childless). If failure to Yibbum was the crime Onan was killed for, then why wasn't Judah also killed for not allowing his 3rd son to preform it? And besides that, The Law added quite a few limits to punishments. Eye for an eye is a famous limitation (as in, only an eye for an eye and no more than an eye). The Hebrews, after the Law was given, lived under its rule and protection. After the Law was fulfilled, Christians were no longer under its rule but also not under its protection. Case and point, Ananias and Sapphira pretended to donate the proceeds of their land to the church but kept some back. They also were struck dead, and a twofer no less. Both parties pretended to do the right thing outwardly but tried to secretly reneg. Both parties premeditated their ruse. Both parties tried to get their pleasure without the responsibilities. Both parties were pioneers in their crimes (1st fake donation for their eras) and so had to be made an example of. Neither party was under the protection of the Law. But a possible difference is, Onan's eternal fate is unclear. Ananias and Sapphira had been promised heaven.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.248.53 (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Narrative''' is only one POV 

message: "The Jewish attorney Alan Dershowitz has suggested that Onan and Tamar engaged in frottage (non-penetrative sex) or in anal sex. Also, he suggests that the anger of Yaweh was directed not at the sexual act, but at Onan's disobedience by refusing to impregnate his brother's widow.Alan Dershowitz, The Genesis of Justice  "
Is it important that Dershowitz is Jewish to this statement?  Does that make him an expert on Onan?  Does that he is a lawyer make him an expert on Onan?  I agree with the thought of the statement, but I am not sure that it is appropriate.  Lets just put in the statement of opinion, who gave the opinion and a citatin that supports that accurately.  Atom (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dershowitz was not simply an , but had a named chair as a law professor at Harvard Law School. This gives him special insight and authority in matters of law, both modern and ancient. As coming from an Orthodox Jewish background, he surely has read the Hebrew Bible and some Oral Torah and had enough time to reflect upon it after he decided he is a secular Jew. tgeorgescu (talk)  07:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about Dershowitz 

message: I think it is clear for any thinking person that the act described by the Bible is actually coitus interruptus, not masturbation. The reference from Coogan was required by WP:VER, but he is very far from being the only one who thinks so, in fact he expresses the consensus. There's not much to doubt about that, so it is not a matter of what "some modern scholars" believe, but a matter of reading and comprehending your own Bible translation. This is a factual claim, not an opinion; Coogan states it as a fact, not as an interpretation. The Bible does not use the word masturbation or any other synonym of it or any expression which could mean it, in fact there is not a single Bible verse mentioning masturbation or describing the act of masturbating. It is only a matter of using the proper English words for what the text says. If some have used their own imagination to guess that the Bible referred to masturbation, this is simply what their imagination has added to the clear text. I saw old porn films wherein actors were cumming before the camera without masturbating, so it is physically possible to commit coitus interruptus without masturbating. In fact, thinking that Onan's story refers to masturbation is a gross error of misinterpreting a written text. No matter what theologians had to say on this issue in the past, they were not using the text of the Bible but they were speaking as theologians, not as interpreters of the written text. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed by a Catholic tract declared error-free by a book censor and approved by a bishop at . See also J. Harold Ellens, Sex in the Bible: a new consideration, p. 48 at . Also confirmed at . Epiphanius of Salamis agrees according to John M. Riddle, Contraception and abortion from the ancient world to the Renaissance, p. 4 at . Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please supply us with the details of said video so we could potentially cite it as part of this article? PuppyOnTheRadio talk 06:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember the title, but it was with porn stars from the golden age of US porn. A guy with a mustache I believe, he was famous then. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All those guys had mustaches. Let's please not start citing porn videos as a source in an article on a biblical topic. In other news, many of the sources given above aren't reliable, and this statement I found above, "I saw old porn films wherein actors were cumming before the camera without masturbating, so it is physically possible to commit coitus interruptus without masturbating", that's a just a complete logical fallacy. (I hate to be a party pooper, but if you want to interrupt your coitus, all you have to do is pull (or push!) it out.) Drmies (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A significant number of porn films do involve fallacies. (Sorry - small things amuse small minds.)  06:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, coming back to the initial idea: the quoted sources are indeed written by scholars, but "the story of Onan does not describe masturbation"=fact and "the Bible does not condemn masturbation"=fact. I know it since I have read the whole Bible: it nowhere mentions masturbation, the Bible is completely silent upon masturbation. So, imho, these should be presented as facts, not as mere opinions. There are facts about written texts, e.g. "War and Peace contains among its characters the Bezukhovs"=fact and it should be presented as fact, not as mere scholarly opinion. It would be ridiculous to discuss War and Peace and say that some scholars devised the theory that the author wrote about some characters called the Bezukhovs. The unreliable sources which were removed from the article showed exactly this: both Protestants (Evangelicals) and Catholics do not buy the story that Onan was masturbating, simply because the Bible does not say anything about masturbation. If some use their filthy minds to second guess what the Bible meant, be it so, but this is not what the Bible says. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid point, assuming that the only text relating to this was the Bible.  There are numerous sources that refer to this as relating to either masturbation, or a "waste" of seminal fluid (ergo, contraception). For further biblical references to this, in the sermon on the mount (if I remember my scripture correctly) it refers to sins of thought as opposed to sins of the flesh, and this could potentially relate to masturbation.  Remembering that not every biblical text is a literal commandment - I have heard very few scholars suggest that "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off" - Sorry, again I can't remember the location of this verse - is directly relating to self mutilation. Of course, as with anything religiously based, there are numerous ways this can be taken.  1st Corinthians 13 is not about cleaning out the old toys from your attic after all - at least, I'm assuming that's not what Pul intended with this.  As it is this is reflecting a significant number of scholarly texts from the past 1600 odd years in regards to the deeper meaning.  Wikipedia is a neutral point of view encyclopedia and relies on scholarly text, not pushing any individul religions particular denominational view. If people are after the orignal text, they will generally refer to the citation notes for that detail, as well as looking at talk pages.  00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I have rephrased it. While I agree that past Christians theologians were far from agreeing with Coogan and other modern Bible scholars, I see no ground to deny that modern, mainstream Bible scholars are in nigh agreement with Coogan and other Bible scholars which I have cited. tgeorgescu (talk)  06:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible and masturbation 

message: There are multiple >'s and <'s used in the quote from this fellow, but there is no indicator as to what they're supposed to mean. Are they missing words? In that case they should be marked using square brackets []. Are they emphasised words? In which case italics should be used. I'm almost 100% certain that those characters did not exist when Epiphanius wrote that, so I highly doubt that they're in the original text. So why are they used? 1.157.95.133 (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  >'s in the quote from Epiphanius of Salamis