ONAN...spilling his seed....GENESIS 38

MY  ANSWER  TO  QUESTION  OF  THE  SIN  OF  ONAN  IN  GENESIS  38

 Answer:

So  we  are  back  to  Genesis  38  and  this  Onan  and  spilling  his  seed  stuff.

You  must  be  reading  everything  Roman  Catholic  whoevers.....  trying  to  make  this  spilling  of  seed  a  HUGE  SIN!

I'm  not  saying  this  section  is  used  "officially"  by  the  RC  church,  but  various  Catholic theology  individuals  try  to  use  it.  Everyone  has  to  give  some  kind  of  "Scripture"  to  back  up  their  beliefs  or  ideas  they  want  to  promulgate.

FIRST,  people  who  do  this,  making  it  sin  to  masturbate,  are  two  things,  either  they  have  no  sex  hormones [or  very  very  low]  OR  they  deliberately  want  men  to  agonize  for  most  of  their  lives,  and  get  some  kick  out  of  the  thought  of  that.

SECOND.  What  about  women  masturbating?  More  than  you  think  do  it;  they  spill  no  seed,  and  I've  mentioned  some  can  get  an  orgasm  riding a  bike,  or  horse,  or  breast  feeding. If  their  husband  is  away  a  lot [like  being  a pilot  for  an  air  company]  and  they  think  of  him  as  they  masturbate,  is  that  sin  to  these  Onan  text  people?  From  a  medical  perspective  they  say  masturbating  to  orgasm  produces  many  good  chemicals  that  keep  you  young. One  book  says  the  more  orgasms  you  have  the  younger  you  will  keep  yourself.

THIRD.  What  about  "wet  dreams"  men  can  have,  is  spilling  seed  wrong  here;  if  so  God  is  wrong  for  He  invented  it.

Question:

I haven't asked you this question yet, but I'd like to get it out of the way.  I'm typing something that may become a book someday.  It's on the topic of sexuality, and my studies have led to the following problem.

I'm curious as to the reason why Onan's account was worded the way it is.  I've noticed that sexual experiences in the Bible are worded differently depending upon their morality.  

Answer

***They do!!!

Question: 

If sex is done correctly, such language as "gone/went into her" and "knew her" are used.  However, if immoral, language such as "uncovered her nakedness" is used.  Generally speaking, then, the moral kinds of sex are referred to in an indirect manner, while the language becomes more explicit when sex becomes immoral.

Answer:

***It  does!!!  Nope,  wrong  theology,  that  is  used  on  other  things  also,  making  wrong  inferences,  will  explain  shortly.

Question:

Genesis 38:9 says that Onan went into his brother's wife, which uses the indirect language connoting licit, moral sex.  However, the language suddenly becomes more explicit following this.  

Answer:

***Just  a  minute,  you  said  "gone/went  into  her"  was  a  kinda  "good"  language.  So  according  to  that  thinking  it  was  "good" - done  correctly.

Question:

It says that Onan destroyed [his seed] to the ground.  Would this not suggest that this contraceptive act is sin, given the explicitness of the language?

A

***Nope.... how  are  you  going  to  tell  people  he  did  not  put  his  seed  into  her?  Either  by  saying,  "He  withdrew  and  his  seed  was  not  put  into  her."  Or  "His  seed  he  spilt  on  the  ground."   You  will  have  to  word  it  somehow  to  tell  your  readers  he  did  not  put  his  seed  into  her.  You  are  just  trying  to  get  it  across  to  people's  minds  Onan  did  not  allow  his seed  to  enter  her. Just  that  simple,  nothing  being  meant  by  it  BUT  trying  to  convey  in  words,  to  readers,  that  Onan  had  no  intention  to  let  his  seed  go  into her.  Onan  was  being  very  deceptive.  Kinda  like,  "Wow  this  is  some  great  chick  here,  wow  I'd  just  love  to  have  my  penis  inside  her  and  enjoy  a  good  ...."  Then  also  saying,  "But  I  do  not  want  to  raise  up  children  for  my  brother."  A  very  deceptive  mind-set.  Judah  had  already  said,  "Go  in  unto  thy  brother's  wife,  and  marry  her, and  raise  up  seed  to  thy  brother" [v.8]. The  same  "go  in  unto  her"  -  according  to  you  "sex  is  done  correctly"  words.  And  so  verse  9  also.  Onan  sure  wanted  to  have  good  sex  with  her  but  sure  was  not  wanting  to  marry  her  and  raise  up  seed  to  his  brother.

Question:

If Onan's sin was depriving his dead brother of an heir, then wouldn't his sin have consisted of a wrong attitude of mind and not a particular sinful act?  It isn't as though the Hebrew language lacked terms to describe evil attitudes of mind, when those were the kinds of sins in question.  

***Indeed  it  was  a  sin  of  wrong  attitude  of  mind,  and  a  sin  of  deception.  Making  out  to  all,  Judah  and  the woman,  he  wanted to  marry  her  and  raise  up  children  to  his  brother,  but  in  reality  he  just  wanted  a  good  sex  experience  and  come  to  an  orgasm  while  thinking  what  a  great  body  to  be  in  while  coming  to  an  orgasm.  Pure  selfishness,  lust,  desire  to  be  in  her,  but  not  to  marry  and  raise  up  children.  

Question:

For example, the Bible didn't say that God killed Onan for his hardness of heart or other term describing a sin of wrong attitude.  

Answer:

***It  doesn't????  Wow,  I   think  you  have  to  be  reading  into  something  that  just  ain't  there.  Knowing  the  law  of  raising  up  children  to  your  brother [done  in  those  days  and  under  the  Old  Covenant  -  a  law  shown  in  the  book  of  Ruth]  it  is  VERY  CLEAR  "the  thing  which  he  did  displeased  the  Lord...."  How  can  not  these  certain  Catholics  see  the  plain  understanding  here???  Judah  thought  he  was  going  to  marry  her,  he  went  in  unto  her  as  Judah  wanted.  Onan  was  deceiving  Judah.  He  was  deceiving  the  woman  also.  But  he  could  not  deceive  the  Lord.  Onan  was  killed  by  God  for  deceiving  everyone  but  God.  He  had  no  intention  to  marry  her  and  raise  up  children..... he  just  wanted  to  f... her  to  put  it  bluntly.  Knowing  the  law  of  "raising  up  children  to  your  brother"  and  the  context  of  these  verses,  it  is  very  clear  what  was  going  on  here.  Only  some  "no  masturbating  spilling  seed  on  the  ground"  or  "No  contraception  of  any  kind,  including  withdrawing  on  orgasm"]  Roman  Catholics  make  up  some  other  teaching  from  this.  

Question:

No, it used explicit language to describe Onan's act of using contraception, and remember that explicit language describes evil acts of sex in the Bible.  

***No  you  have  made  up  a  "rule"  of  Bible  reading  that  is  not  wise.

Question:

Also, it didn't say that it was Onan's attitude that was sinful, but said that what he DID was evil, which points to a specific ACT, not attitude.

Answer:

***Nope  your  made  up  rule,  can  lead  you  to  a  false  doctrine  and  teaching.  How  do  you  separate  the  mind  from  the  body  in  this  specific  case.  You  have  to  tell  your  readers,  put   into  language,  the  wrong  attitude  of  mind  from  Onan,  as  he  has  sex  with  this  lady. The  mind  and  physical  act  go hand  in  hand  here;  as  you  tell  the  physical  act  OF  NOT  RAISING  UP  SEED  to  his  brother,  how are  you  going  to  put it,  so  readers  can  understand  Onan's  mind-set.  I  guess  you  could  say,  "But  Onan  withdrew  as  he  climaxed  to  orgasm."  That  would  be  a  way  modern  writers  might  put  it.  Nothing  about  seed  being  spilt  or  entering  her,  BUT  we  all  know  what  such  language  would  mean..... seed  or  sperm  did  not  enter  her!!!

The  doing  of  this,  however  you  want  to  put  it  in  language  that  people  know  no  sperm  entered  her,  is  language  to  convey  that  truth  and  fact  of  the  action,  to  the  mind  of  others,  that  no  sperm  entered  her;  he  was  not  going  to  marry  her,  raise up  children  to  his  brother  at  all,  but  just  wanted  to  have  a  good  sex  session  with  her,  to  again  put  it  bluntly,  come  to  orgasm  while  f....ing  her.

The  thing  done,  in  this  case  cannot  be  separated  from  the  attitude  of  mind.  The  way  the  writer  [Moses]  put  it  was  the  way  he  chose  to  put  it  in  the  plain  language  of  his  day,  that  people  would  know  clearly  no  seed  or  sperm  was  entering  her,  and  hence  no  marriage,  and  raising  up  children  to  his  brother,  as  Judah  and  the  woman  thought  was  being  done.  Mighty  GREAT  deception  on  Onan's part  for  a  good  selfish  sex  time.  Just  imagine  the  deception  Onan  gave  out  to  others.  And  it  may  have  been  days  between  what  Judah  said  to  him  in  verse  8,  and  the  action  of  verse  9. We  are  not  told  the  time  from  verse  8,  to  verse  9.  So  many  others  could  have  been  deceived  also. Thinking  this was  a  marriage  and  consummating  it,  and  a  brother  going  to  raise  up  children  to  his  dead  brother. Onan  was  deceiving  BIG  TIME..... all  but  God  were  deceived.

The  action  and  intent  of  the  heart  and  mind  cannot  be  separated  in this  case.  You  have  to  use  language  to  convey  this  if  your  writing  about  it;  Moses  chosen  the  language  he  did,  all  in  that  day,  knew  exactly  what  Moses  was  saying  here.  Today  we  could  write  it  differently  but  still  get  the  clear  message  across  to  our  readers,  the  intent  of  Onan  was  deceptive  and  his  action  went  with  his  deceptive  mind.

Now  to  your  making  up  rules  of  Bible  reading. 

VERY  VERY  destructive  to  do,  leading  sometimes  into  false  doctrine.

Example;  God  usually  begins  days  at  SUNSET!  EVENING!  But  without  warning,  a  writer  is  inspired  to  not  use  sunset  or  EVENING,  and  as  stated  we  are  given  no  warning,  it  is  just  there  before us.....bingo....just  there!!  Example,  John  20:19.  Jesus  did  things  on  the  first  day  of  His  appearing  to  the   disciples.  Part  of  this  appearing  included  was  in  the  room  with  the  doors  shut.  John  tells  us  it  was  the  same  day,  at  EVENING,  being  the  FIRST  day  of  the  week.  Not  the  second  day,  but  the  FIRST  day...... John  used  ROMAN  time,  the  first  day  lasting  till  midnight.  We  have  no  warning,  we  are  not  told  he  was  using  Roman  time;  it  just  happens,  the  norm  is  broken.... exceptions  to  the  norm  is  just  given,  with  no  warning  or  explanation.

From  Genesis  and  MANY  other  places,  God  starts  a  new  day  at  EVENING.  If  reading  Genesis  we  say  "evening"  ALWAYS  starts  the  new day..... it  is  the  rule,  for  we  see  this  in  so  may  verses...... then  bingo.....  we  run  into  a  very  hard  way  to  make  our  rule  stick  in  John 20:19.  

So  whatever  "rule"  you  want   to  make  from  the  majority  of  Scriptures,  you  try  and  put  that  rule  into  iron  chains,  set  in  stone,  and  sure  enough  God  will  blow  you  away  by  not  following  your  rule,  that  you've  made  for  yourself.  Ah  yes,  God  has  EXCEPTIONS   to  the  norm,  to  the  rule.

It  is  one  of  those  things  God  has  put  into  the  Bible,  often  without  telling  you..... just  there,  and  he  blows  away  the  rule  or  the  norm.  Just  when  you  think  you  have  got  the  Bible  all  into  little  neat  compartments,  all  set  out  into  rules  and  norms,  God  blows  it  away  with  exceptions  to  the  norm.

Be  careful  with  the  rules  of  Bible  reading  YOU  give  to  Bible  reading,  as  there  surely  will  be  a  verse  that  blows  away  the  rule!!