Bah! I didn’t see cmkeller’s post on the Hebrew translation. :smack:
I’m not a scholar or Hebrew nor halacha, but the idea that the sin of Onan leads to masturbation (or coitus interruptus) being forbidden seems like a logical fallacy to me inasmuch as the “spilling/destroying of the seed” was merely the means by which he committed the greater sin of ignoring a direct order from G-d.
Now I wouldn’t normally analogize Biblical history, but if Onan had been directly ordered by G-d to provide Tamar with a house instead of a son, and Onan had demolished the house instead of allowing Tamar to live in it and was thereby punished by G-d by being stuck dead, would the resultant lesson be that it was sinful to demolish a house? It seems to me that the resultant lesson would be that it was sinful to disobey that which G-d tells us to do. If we draw a comparison to modern criminal law, means is an element of the crime, but intent, the causative factor, is the lynchpin upon which the case hinges.
Even if Onan’s sin was specifically related to the destruction of his seed, why would a prohibition of that act apply as a general rule outside of specific situations in which one squanders their seed rather than impregnating their partner? An unmarried man, for instance, is not depriving anyone of an heir (with all of the connotations of protection and assurance of position and status that come along with being the mother of a man’s son) by masturbating, nor is a teenage boy. A married man whose wife is currently pregnant or is beyond childbearing age is also not bound to reserve his sperm at that given time in order to produce a child. One could even argue that masturbation by a man whose wife was niddah could be a benefit to their marriage as it would lessen the likelyhood that he’d be tempted to violate the law by seeking sexual congress with his wife during that forbidden time.
Perhaps I’m being overly strict in my interpretation here, but I’m not seeing a connection of reasoning.
I’m left curious, though. If the standard interpretation of the story of Onan and Tamar leads to a ban on masturbation and coitus interruptus, does it also logically extend to a prohibition of contraceptives, particularly barrier methods like condoms?
Orthodox Christianity considers masturbation to be a sin, as well as any sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Of course, there may be mitigating factors, to be determined by one’s spiritual father, but the actual act itself is always sinful.
I know i don’t often join in discussions outside of my own threads. But I felt compelled to share something I once read in the new Catholic catechism (which was compiled sometime in the early 90s:
But also note that:
Which I guess means, Hey, if he (or she) is young or immature, or plans to continue doing it anyways, just leave 'em alone. He goes to church Sunday and supports the Church (presumably if he is telling this to a priest in confession). What more do you want from him?
Seriously, though, I think the Catholic church has to have one of the strictest codes concerning masturbation and other extramarital sexual activities. That is probably one of the reasons I consider myself to be a Catholic largely in name only. But don’t disparage all
Catholics. I think most of them are decent people who are sincere in their (sometimes strange) beliefs.
Now carry on with the discussion as you were before I came here 
.
Interesting thread here. I was confused, however, by the terms halal and haram. Haram seems the more serious, but I’m not sure what it means.
Much reference is made to touching the sex organ with the right hand without a barrier, or having to perform an ablution if you do so. What would this ablution be? Simply washing? Does this mean that masturbating with your left if perfectly OK?
What about simply taking a leak? Would this require said ablution, also?
Regards the Onan reference; I was taught during my extremely short religious training, that this referred to masturbation. Recent reinterpretations, however, seem to classify this, now, as coitus interruptus, so I guess I’m safe.
Bob
Son of a gun, I forgot to add something about Onan. My religion teacher in high school once pointed out an interesting fact. Ancient peoples didn’t believe in sperm, naturally because they didn’t invent the microscope yet. So logically, to these patriarchal, phallocentric people, it seemed obvious a man’s semen must contain the baby, just microscopically I guess. So… Onan did more than just masturbate–for the people who originally put the bible together, he would also be guilty of murder. Now, of course we realize semen doesn’t contain a baby, for goodness sake. So masturbate away, I guess is the logical conclusion. Now carry on with the discussion please .
why is this thread always above the mustard on your manhood thread?
I mean it’s like there joined at the hip or something.
TeaElle:
You misunderstand. Traditional Judaism considers every word of the Torah to be significant - if one word is used where another could have sufficed, there must be a specific reason for the choice; if a word or phrase seems extraneous and could have been omitted, there must be a specific message in the addition. Hence, the fact that the “destroying of seed” was specifically mentioned in this context is considered to be making the point that willful destruction of semen is sinful in and of itself - outside of any other thing that Onan did wrong by not properly attempting to impregnate Tamar.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Haram means prohibited/sinful and Halal is the opposite of haram (permitted).
Ablutions are simply washing.
The deal with ablutions is pretty simple. In Islam, cleanliness is an important virtue and normally, you is supposed to purify yourself through woodo’ before praying.
That means washing your arms, legs, head and privates (not necessarily in that order 
) . This rule is not absolute and if your situation or physical condition do not allow you to, you are exempt. (very recurrent concept in Islam by the way).
If you pee, poop, fart, sleep, masturbate, sleep, etc., you become unclean again.
I hope that answers your question.
Yes, Gozu, that answers my questions quite completely.
Thanks,
Bob
Yep. Take a nice big dump, reach in, get yourself a good handful, and proceed to…
…Why is everyone looking at me?
Ya know that spot somewhere between your shoulder blades, that, when it itches, you just can’t reach it from below, and you just can’t reach it from over your shoulder? If God didn’t want you to masturbate, that’s where your dick would be.
Or he would have put your hands where your elbows are.
But what about ejaculating from “nocturnal emmisions”? What about the natural expenditure of minor amounts of spermazoa in urine? That certainly isn’t the fault of the subject of said emmision expender.
The way I understood the Orthodox Christianity view was from here.. Basically it says exploring your body isn’t a sin, but the problem is when lust takes over. Then it is sinful.
[hollering]What about the Hindu position on masturbation? And the Shinto one! Buddhists? Mormons?[/hollering]
But thanks for the answers so far.
Bad Cervaise, BAD!
Hey, Doc. Da Mormons–they no think it a good thing to do with your time. Cite
Idea is that sexuality is for married people only. Other uses of your junk or itts correct usage outside of the procreative bliss of wedlock is a not-good thing.
I did a search on Amazon for “masturbation Shinto” and it came back with a book I already had. Interesting.
My copy of India Unbound by Gurcharan Das, may have an answer to two of your questions. On page 289, he discusses Arthur Koestler’s The Lotus and the Robot:
Koestler wrote his book in 1960, after doing his research and travel in the 40’s and 50’s, and it reflects the attitudes of the times. I don’t know much about India, but it seems that ancient India was more open about sexuality than the India of today. The parts on Japan and Shinto seem reasonably accurate, though. Shinto deals more in impurities that must be cleasned than in sins against the word of God that will mark your soul forever, and impurities were typically removed by bathing.
Getting off in the shower would therefore take care of both pleasure and purification at the same time, I suppose.
IANAVEB (very experienced Buddhist), but what I’ve come up with so far in communication with Buddhists is that masturbation is often considered an unhealthy action. One of the five precepts in Buddhist teachings is to abstain from sexual misconduct. An arguement can be made that masturbation could be considered a sexual misconduct because of the reason that one is masturbating.
One of the main underlying concepts in Buddhism is avoiding attachment. If one masturbates because of an attachment to the feeling of the orgasm, then masturbation could conceivably be considered as blocking one’s path to enlightenment.
However, I’ve also seen it said in a Buddhist discussion board that because masturbation is a “one man show” and does not involve others, it cannot possibly bring harm to others, and thus is not a breaking of the precept.
Is that any clearer?