But if every Christian's opinion --- particularly modern, post-sexual-revolution, post-playboy philosophy --- has equal weight, then further discussion is pointless. You have settled into "what is good in your own eyes," which so many have found to be a sufficient armor for invincible ignorance.
I read the bible. What more do I need? Lev 15:16-18 clearly does not consider spilling of seed to be sinful. So what did Onan do that was sinful? He disobeyed.
Onan's sin, like almost all sins, was undoubtedly multi-layered. Whenever you violate the moral law, you usually have pride and disobedience mixed into it all, in addition to the specific delict. There is no indication in the Leviticus 15 text that the spilling of some seed outside of the body of the man's wife was deliberate: I'm sure you are experienced enough to know that a spurt or dribble can happen quite inadvertently. Therefore your example does not prove that the deliberate spilling of the seed outside of the natural place --- his wife's genital tract --- is morally lovely in God's eyes.
Your dismissive attitude toward 20 cetnturies' worth of Biblical moral commentary, Jewish and Christian, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant, however Scripture-based or linguistically expert it may be, does not provide me with any evidence that you are diligently seeking the truth. Forgive me: perhaps you are seekin sincerely. But individuals who brush aside the testimony of God's people through the millennia can be suspected of merely trying to justify what they have previously decided is OK.
"Any coupling [of Onan with Tamar]resulting in orgasm would only have been from lust, not from love. "
Whatever drives or sensations Onan may have experienced, please note that the natural drives and sensations concerning copulation are common to all mankind, and were created good by God: they arise spontaneously, and do not constitute, in themselves, sinful lust.
Additionally, and more importantly, if Onan had obeyed God and had had honest, natural intercourse with Tamar and desposted his seed in her, his motivation would have been principally obedience, not self-gratification or "lust." Even if he and she both had a heck of a good time at it. Which is, of course, what one would hope.
"How can it be not sinful to finish inside her but sinful to finish outside her when it's the same lust?"
See above. If he had had a complete and natural act of intercourse, it would have been obedience and not lust. If he intentionally failed to complete the commanded, natural act, and deliberately committed a perverse act instead, he is guilty of the perverse act, as well as of disobedience, selfishness, pride, greed, and being a general all-around jerk.
"Show me in the Bible.
(Genesis 38:9-10)"[Onan] spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."
What he did: spilled his semen on the ground
Why he did it: to keep from producing offspring
Why God put him to death: because what he did was wicked
That's about as clear as you can get. What does it take to get the message across? Neon arrows and X marks the spot?
But then you probably move within a Catholic community while I move in Protestant communities.
Aha. There's the problem. You have dismissed every community and every teacher, including the founders of the Reformation --- Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and even the comparatively more modern Protestant Biblical scholars like Matthew Henry. And why? Because you evidently think 20th and 21st century people, in a culture profoundly and pervasively contaminated with a "sexual diversity" mindset, know better than the unanimous testimony of Spirit-led and God-loving believers in the 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century---etc --- all the way up through the mid-20th century.
Do your really think they were all in error, but you and your acquaintances, people largely and even unconsciously influenced (whether you wanted to be or not) by a sexually corrupt 20th century culture, are not in error in what you consider to be sexually decent or indecent?
I'm not saying this to stomp all over you, and if I have offended you in any way, I do beg your pardon: please point out my offense and I will try not to repeat my offense. Nor do I imagine I am "above and beyond" the modern sex culture which has so insidiously affected us, our loved ones, and everyone around us. I am not above this culture. I am up to my chin in it.
I do earnestly hope that you will, just as a godly experiment, put away the 20th-21st centuries temporarily, and go back to the more time-honored and traditional sources of Biblical interpretation. Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Protestant, Evangelical, Whatever.
These 19-and-a-half centuries of Bible-guided people, reading the same Biblical texts that you and I read, and praying to the Holy Spirit just as you and I do, stand in stark contrast with the tendencies of our playboy-influenced, gay-influenced culture, which we modern Christians are consciously or unconsciously swayed by. You will find, as I say, unanimity there on the matter we are discussing. And then you'll have to ponder why.
Best wishes to you, and God bless.
No I've settled into a "this is what the word says about the topic" attitude.
There is no indication in the Leviticus 15 text that the spilling of some seed outside of the body of the man's wife was deliberate:.....Therefore your example does not prove that the deliberate spilling of the seed outside of the natural place --- his wife's genital tract --- is morally lovely in God's eyes.
And there is no indication that the spilling is not deliberate. Therefore your interpretation does not prove that it is sinful.
But individuals who brush aside the testimony of God's people through the millennia can be suspected of merely trying to justify what they have previously decided is OK.
Up until recently slavery was seen as morally OK also. By God's people as well as by most others. "We've always does it that way" does not make good theology. What does the word say? I've read through the commentaries I have available right here and while a couple condemn onanism none of them give a biblical proof that what he did (beyond disobedience) is wrong. I feel they were so blinded by their culture that they refused to read what the word says
please note that the natural drives and sensations concerning copulation are common to all mankind, and were created good by God: they arise spontaneously, and do not constitute, in themselves, sinful lust.
My point is that Onan had intercourse with Tamar. Why? Because he loved her? I think not. We know he did not want to raise up children to his brother, so since he was going to disobey anyway why did he lay with his brother's widow? Lust.
Additionally, and more importantly, if Onan had obeyed God and had had honest, natural intercourse with Tamar and desposted his seed in her, his motivation would have been principally obedience, not self-gratification or "lust."
I'll give you that one. If he was going to be obedient. (Which brings us right back to his problem, He was disobedient)
"Show me in the Bible.
(Genesis 38:9-10)"[Onan] spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."
What he did: spilled his semen on the ground
What he did was disobey. He did not produce children for his brother. That is what God saw as wicked. He erased his brother's name from out of Israel.
That's about as clear as you can get. What does it take to get the message across? Neon arrows and X marks the spot?
I ws thinking of asking you the same question :^) He did two things. He spilled his seed, which is not called a sin in the bible. and he disobeyed, Which is called a sin in the bible. Which is more likely that God killed him for, the sin or the non-sin?
Because you evidently think 20th and 21st century people, in a culture profoundly and pervasively contaminated with a "sexual diversity" mindset, know better than the unanimous testimony of Spirit-led and God-loving believers in the 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century---etc --- all the way up through the mid-20th century.
It has nothng to do with sexual diversity. Or with sex at all. It has everything to do with what the bible actually says. A man who spills his seed (Lev 15:16 does not restrict itself to involuntary emmsions) is unclean but not sinful. (note that accompanying thoughts may still be sinful)
Do your really think they were all in error, but you and your acquaintances, people largely and even unconsciously influenced (whether you wanted to be or not) by a sexually corrupt 20th century culture, are not in error in what you consider to be sexually decent or indecent?
It has nothing to do with sexually decent or indecent. It has to do with what the bible says. (BTW, They all believed slavery was OK too.)
if I have offended you in any way,
No offense whatsoever. Even if we disagree we can still reason together.
I do earnestly hope that you will, just as a godly experiment, put away the 20th-21st centuries temporarily, and go back to the more time-honored and traditional sources of Biblical interpretation.
What is more traditional than reading what it actually says? Earlier cultures are just as susceptible to reading it for what they want it to say as we are. I've found nothing in the bible that contradicts the interpretation of Lev 15:16-18 as given above.
Best wishes to you, and God bless.
And to you and yours