Talk:Onan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Repeated sentence

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)

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)
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)
The sentence also has "universally" in it - which isn't accurate. John Calvin and Wesley both used it to refer to masturbation, and they were both biblical scholars. I would argue that the word should be removed, and replaced with "modern biblical scholars generally agree". Richlitt (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Lawyer?

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)

POV

"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)

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)

I'd counter that argument by merely repeating the first, saying it was the sight of disobedience that displeased the Lord. But as there is nothing specifically pointing us either way, it's unprovable exactly what was meant here. Personally I feel no other passage's interpretation has caused so much grief, for Catholic schoolkids especially. 98.246.184.50 (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Semantics

I removed:

A problem with this explanation is that although the descendants of Abraham, Issac and Jacob fulfilled the biblical laws to some extent, there was no commandment to follow them until the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai a few thousand years after these events occurred. Additionally, the punishment for such a trangression is not death, but rather flogging. The death of Onan (and Er, who sinned similarly by spilling his seed (Commentary of Rashi on Genesis 38:7) can be explained as being a heavenly decree, not one meted out by a rabbinical court. (Sefer HaChinuch, ISBN: 0-87306-605-7) The purpose of this form of marriage was to prevent a childless widow from becoming pauperized, due to not having a husband or son to support her and not being able to own property herself; thus Onan's refusal was considered very cruel treatment of his sister-in-law.

This is fairly semantic and technical. Most Jewish sources agree that the Patriarchs observed most commandments voluntarily, especially in the Land of Israel, and were held accountable for violations. I think this paragraph was inserted as an attempt to provide a rebuttal for the modernist claims. Unless this is the "classical" response to these claims, it is probably original research. JFW | T@lk 23:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd support replacing this text, in one form or another. I actually would call it the classical interpretation of Onan's sin (as well as other similar events amongst those who lived prior to the time of Har Sinai but were not actual Patriarchs). The explanation you have brought up in the name of most Jewish sources is (as was said) generally felt to apply specifically to the Patriarchs and specifically within the Land of Israel, and leaves one with difficulty whenever those conditions aren't met within the text. Seeing as Onan was neither Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob...
Anyway, the area of the article that deals with this issue needs some work. Rshaulcolm 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

116.91.78.243 (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)== Monty Python at the bottom ==

The song "Every Sperm is Sacred" is not about masturbation, it's about birth control, though the Catholic Church looks at both the same way. I'm changing "masturbation" to "birth control".--Reverend Distopia 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the last time I did my sister-in-law, I pulled out too; what's the problem?

Who's the ARtist of that picture

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)

Narrative is only one POV

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)

Statement about Dershowitz

Bible and masturbation

>'s in the quote from Epiphanius of Salamis

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI