401. Comment #110287 by Cartomancer on January 10, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Is it just me who can't stop laughing at the irony of a theist warning against obsessive habits of thought which isolate you from healthy interactions with other people and cause deep-seated psychological harm?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

402. Comment #110292 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Psychlogical harm? Hmmm, and I thought it was blindness...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan for Onan. Interestingly, I see Cummins, the engine manufacturer, makes an Onan too. A Cummins Onan generator - now that's got to be a joke!
Anyway, another point of view...
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

Other Comments by Goldy

403. Comment #110293 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Oh, now you're here, ADH, I presume you'll answer some of the questions posted here. Or will you be too busy.....again.

Other Comments by Goldy

404. Comment #110297 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Comment #110152 by Vinelectric

I posted a list of quotations, some from theist sources and some not, of where the Golden Rule was in place before Jesus was supposedly born.

Would you oblige us with the link? I can sift through your posts but that would take ages!

The quotations I gave were:

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." - Confucian Annalects.

"We should not retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him." Socrates in Plato's Crito

"One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter." from the Buddhist Dhammapada

"That one I love who is incapable of ill will, And returns love for hatred." From the Bhagavad Gita.

Other Comments by epeeist

405. Comment #110305 by Goldy on January 11, 2008 at 12:45 am

Epeeist, you know what our ADH will say to that. I believe it is somewhere in this thread

given the quintessential nature of the truth of the Fall and Redemption, it would be surprising if hints of this were not scattered through pagan mythology

There is no winning - whatever we can find is not before his god, his god tinkers with existance and yet we have free will. Also, his god is outside everything so there is no way of finding anything out. And if the questions get too probing, we get no answers :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

406. Comment #110309 by ADH on January 11, 2008 at 1:02 am

Yes Goldy, that is pretty close to what I would say. You're a fast learner! If human beings are made in the image of God, this is the case wherever human beings happen to be, and whenever they lived. Socrates (albeit imperfectly) foreshadowed Christ for the Greeks, and Confucius (also imperfectly) for the Chinese just as the Hebrew poets and prophets (as well as the Hebrew iconography) foreshadowed Him for the Jews.

Can you remind me of the questions I haven't answered?

Other Comments by ADH

407. Comment #110312 by ADH on January 11, 2008 at 1:06 am

"Is it just me who can't stop laughing at the irony of a theist warning against obsessive habits of thought which isolate you from healthy interactions with other people and cause deep-seated psychological harm?"

Cartomancer, be careful that the irony does not backfire on you!

Other Comments by ADH

408. Comment #110313 by MPhil on January 11, 2008 at 1:10 am

ADH:

Yes, I'd like you to read my last few posts, I have pointed out that you misunderstood me at least once, and concerning a very important matter (the justification of hypotheses pertaining to the existence of metaphysical entities).

And as to the foreshadowing of Christ... sorry, but by that statement you place your position firmly outside of the realm of the falsifiable - and thereby you make it vacuous. A hypothesis that can be held whatever the world is like, whether it is actually true or false, and can be defended equally well/badly in both cases cannot be accepted rationally, but only on (in THIS case sadly really) blind faith, there can be no rational justification for assuming it (rather than a falsifiable hypothesis) thus making it irrational.

But please read my last few posts.

Sorry, I'm very busy right now, but I just wanted to direct you to my last few posts... so I may not have to time to respond right now.

Other Comments by MPhil

409. Comment #110315 by MPhil on January 11, 2008 at 1:15 am

Oh I forgot - concerning my first second paragraph:
Because non-falsifiable, the principle I pointed out in an earlier post (the one you misunderstood) has to be observed. And I am convinced that your hypothesis as to the foreshadowing of Christ's message to explain the occurances of the golden rule is absolutely contrary to that assumption, in that it is by far not the most parsimonious theory.

Other Comments by MPhil

410. Comment #110316 by Goldy on January 11, 2008 at 1:19 am

Can you remind me of the questions I haven't answered?

At the bottom, you'll see

More Comments: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I'll make it easy for you - click on the 6 and all the things that start with your name and end in a squigly sign like ? are questions. Some have not been answered directly - Walk, for example, is still waiting :-)

You're a fast learner!

Not being one of those fathers who shirks at the nappy changing duties, I am well acquainted with the smell of shit. I guess this has grown to include other aspects of the same ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

411. Comment #110317 by Goldy on January 11, 2008 at 1:26 am

ADH, here's some
372. Comment #110178 by Mark Smith on January 10, 2008 at 3:24 pm
373. Comment #110179 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 3:28 pm
390. Comment #110214 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 4:24 pm
346. Comment #110143 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 2:37 pm and 344. Comment #110140 by walk on January 10, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Other Comments by Goldy

412. Comment #110318 by Goldy on January 11, 2008 at 1:29 am

Late here in Aotearoa - I'm off to bed. G'nite all! ADH, I'll try and respond to anything you may put to us, and me in particular. Sorry if I appear dismissive....but if you step back when reading your posts, you'll understand.
Again, g'nite!

Other Comments by Goldy

413. Comment #110319 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 1:36 am

Comment #110309 by ADH

that is pretty close to what I would say.

To paraphrase Marianne Moore - A theory "which explains everything explains nothing, and we are still in doubt."

Every time you tag another bit of ad hoc flummery on to what you are putting forward your ideas become less plausible.

Now you want to claim Socrates and other pre-Christian figures as precursors to Christ. Fine, you can have them, unfortunately you have to accept the Green Man, Cernunnos, Cronos and all the rest. You can't just pick the ones you like.

Other Comments by epeeist

414. Comment #110324 by ADH on January 11, 2008 at 1:49 am

Sorry I haven't tackled your questions before now Ian. Here are some tentative answers.

"Who is this 'our' and 'we' you speak of? To my mind this is an admittal that your god, the god of Abraham, is not the god of all humanity but a localised god. How am I wrong here?"

OUR and WE refer to those who have access to the narratives in question. But I am not saying that God is localised, or that he is only the God of those who have access to these narratives. That would be absurd. He is the only true God, but th way in which He chooses to reveal Himself may vary through the ages. Obviously those who have no access to the Biblical narratives will be judged without reference to them. They will be judged in the light of their response to God as revealed in creation and conscience.

"Its scope? But god created that scope, yes? In which case why couldn't he make it wider, more inclusive. Why send Jesus 2,000 years and not today so we can all see him on You tube around the world? Or are you admitting that the 'scope' is a construct of the all to human limitations of the time?"

He has made it wider! The message was quickly disseminated along the roadways and sea routes of the Roman Empire, to the extent that by the early 4th century the Christian Church ws such an influential and widespread global movement that Constantine felt he had no choice but to adopt i as the official ideological framework of the Embire. I am not now commenting on whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, by the way.

Other Comments by ADH

415. Comment #110326 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 1:54 am

ADH: "AfraidToDie, I'm not going to pontificate about masturbation. I believe that a habit of masturbation can induce a kind of psychological dependence on the fantasies that are normally associated with it, which can thereby become obsessive and interfere with normal interaction with other people. This kind of dependence is obviously unhealthy, from a psychological, social and emotional point of view. The Bible has nothing to say about masturbation per se, but it has a lot to say about self-centred indulgence, about directing our minds and our energies towards the well-being of the "other". Masturbation is wrong in so far as it inclines us against this thought pattern."

Another set of sexual hangups. Good grief, from what you are saying everyone in this forum is a psychologically disturbed pervert with severely impaired social skills and are deeply emotionally disturbed.

Alternatively you might apply some common sense and recognise that masturbation is a normal healthy activity even for couples.

Hum, from what ADH is saying I should have joined the boy scouts and tied a knot in it.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

416. Comment #110328 by AllanW on January 11, 2008 at 1:59 am

epeeist; "To paraphrase Marianne Moore - A theory "which explains everything explains nothing, and we are still in doubt."

Every time you tag another bit of ad hoc flummery on to what you are putting forward your ideas become less plausible."

This is exactly the place i hoped to get to before ADH left and I had to get to bed.

This idea that Christianity knows the ideal state for human beings to be in and it is equally applicable to all people seems implausible to me.

There is just too much variation/complexity in behaviours and minds to be coped with. Expanding complexity as we grow and develop as a species that an iron-age myth structure cannot hope to explain and control.

My conclusion is the quote you made; the theory they advance is useless as a guide to behaviour and meaningless except as an intellectual exercise.

Other Comments by AllanW

417. Comment #110330 by Steve Zara on January 11, 2008 at 2:08 am

Another set of sexual hangups. Good grief, from what you are saying everyone in this forum is a psychologically disturbed pervert with severely impaired social skills and are deeply emotionally disturbed.

And we need to be saved, as we are all morally imperfect.

Christianity definitely seems to have sexually and psychologically perverse aspects.

And it also leads people to make nutty statements like the following:

"I think your lifestyle is fundamentally sinful, but I don't see how that should upset you"

(Not ADH)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

418. Comment #110332 by ADH on January 11, 2008 at 2:24 am

Roger, you will notice that I said "A HABIT OF MASTURBATION

Other Comments by ADH

419. Comment #110334 by Peacebeuponme on January 11, 2008 at 2:31 am

Steve

Sorry to but in with this, but this is one area of theist thinking that I find most astounding:

how can anybody find morality in their minds, given that their minds and the physical configuration of their brains are inseparable from each other?

Because much morality is (to put it simply) hard-wired emotional drives. Much like sexual attraction, hunger and so on.

Where did this morality that they "find" there come from?

Evolved punishment/reward paths, somewhat equivalent to pain/pleasure. We rehearse some situations in our mind, and find that they cause us happiness, or sadness, or some other emotion.

Why do theists insist that there is some absolute moral law, or that "morality" actually exists as a separate thing? Why do they find it so hard to accept that we are good to each other because of our emotions, and that these emotions have proved beneficial to the propagation of our species?

Once you understand that we can only talk about "morality" in the sense of agreeing a set of rules for us to live with each other as best we can the questions ADH asked above should go away – they actually don't make sense really.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

420. Comment #110337 by Steve Zara on January 11, 2008 at 2:36 am

Roger, you will notice that I said "A HABIT OF MASTURBATION

ADH: I really have to ask (and this is far more general than personal) can't you see how silly and petty this sounds? There is not the slightest evidence that self-pleasuring does any harm whatsoever. Indeed, recent medical research has indicated that frequent activity of that kind can protect men from prostate problems later in life.

So the attitude of many religious people here is actively detrimental to both psychological and physical health.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

421. Comment #110340 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 2:38 am

Comment #110328 by AllanW

This idea that Christianity knows the ideal state for human beings to be in and it is equally applicable to all people seems implausible to me.

There is just too much variation/complexity in behaviours and minds to be coped with. Expanding complexity as we grow and develop as a species that an iron-age myth structure cannot hope to explain and control.

While I am in quotation mode, I usually only do the first clause of this, but here is the full sentence:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Other Comments by epeeist

422. Comment #110341 by MPhil on January 11, 2008 at 2:38 am

Peacebeuponme

That was what I was going on about all along, altough I think the conclusion is not quite THAT strong, but a little more nuanced. Your last paragraph implies contractualism (which I support), but there are other views compatible with the descriptive facts of moral behaviour and deliberation.
Constructing and evaluating ethical theories not limited to description is still valid, it just has to be coherent with the aforementioned facts.

I think the questions make sense in some way, but not all the proposed answers do (the limits are, I propose the ones I outlined above)

Cheers

Other Comments by MPhil

423. Comment #110342 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 2:39 am

ADH "Roger, you will notice that I said "A HABIT OF MASTURBATION"

So what the heck is the difference between masturbating and being in the habit of masturbating given that all adults have a life time's experience of it?

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

424. Comment #110344 by AllanW on January 11, 2008 at 2:42 am

Couldn't agree more Peacebeuponme.

And ADH about masturbation. Your post about 'habit' just reminds me of the famous Winston Churchill discussion with a lady at dinner; 'Would you have sex with a man for a million pounds?' 'Yes.' 'Would you for a pound?' 'No; do you think I'm a prostitute?' 'We've already established that my dear, we're just haggling over the price.'

If you think masturbation is a morally bad thing how can you discriminate between degrees (a habit)? If you think it's sinful just say so; I'd have more sympathy for such a clear position although I'd still disagree :)

Other Comments by AllanW

425. Comment #110345 by Steve Zara on January 11, 2008 at 2:43 am

but this is one area of theist thinking that I find most astounding:

Me too.

Why do theists insist that there is some absolute moral law, or that "morality" actually exists as a separate thing? Why do they find it so hard to accept that we are good to each other because of our emotions, and that these emotions have proved beneficial to the propagation of our species?

MPhil has written some very informative posts on this topic yesterday. My view is that it is all about fear. Some people need to feel that sense of ultimate justice. They believe that if there isn't such a thing then anyone could get away with anything and there would be moral chaos. Also, some acts are so nasty that surely they must be objectively and universally bad. There surely can't be any perspective from which such acts aren't totally evil.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

426. Comment #110346 by AllanW on January 11, 2008 at 2:44 am

Other Comments by AllanW

427. Comment #110347 by MPhil on January 11, 2008 at 2:48 am

Steve Zara
Some people need to feel that sense of ultimate justice. They believe that if there isn't such a thing then anyone could get away with anything and there would be moral chaos. Also, some acts are so nasty that surely they must be objectively and universally bad. There surely can't be any perspective from which such acts aren't totally evil.

Indeed, I completely agree. Of course with philosophers, genuine argumentative confusions may also be a reason but generally, that is how I see it, too. And haven't we all heard theists propose just such thoughts as if they were arguments?

Other Comments by MPhil

428. Comment #110348 by Peacebeuponme on January 11, 2008 at 2:48 am

MPhil

That was what I was going on about all along

Thanks. I'll have a look through your posts. I've only been reading some of the posts, since there's only so much of my time on this site that I can get away with during the day!

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

429. Comment #110351 by TonyA on January 11, 2008 at 3:00 am

Can anybody tell me how theists came to the realization that their deity operates from a domain that is entirely outside our universe? I don't think that any of the theist's original texts make this claim. Therefore, I suspect it is a rationalized retreat; looking for the cover of shadows, fleeing from the light of reason.

Other Comments by TonyA

430. Comment #110353 by Paula Kirby on January 11, 2008 at 3:09 am

ADH: Providence is the unseen activity of God

So if it's unseen, how do you know it's there?

And, given that there are so many explanations that we CAN see for the things that theists ascribe to Providence, what makes Providence the best explanation?

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

431. Comment #110354 by The Reverend Dark on January 11, 2008 at 3:17 am

ADH dilated and heaved like Elvis in his final moments.

You're a fast learner! If human beings are made in the image of God, this is
the case wherever human beings happen to be, and whenever they lived. Socrates (albeit
imperfectly) foreshadowed Christ for the Greeks, and Confucius (also imperfectly) for
the Chinese just as the Hebrew poets and prophets (as well as the Hebrew iconography)
foreshadowed Him for the Jews.

What utter crap. You try and wiggle what you consider the good bits of your faith into
the time predating the faith as an example of your god moving in mysterious,
nonsensical, and highly inefficient ways. Of course, you also ignore that Socrates was
wiggling his 'good bits' in places frowned upon in Leviticus. I guess those parts were
not placed upon the celestial photocopier - as Jesus hadn't been born yet, the tradition of
the office Christmas party hadn't arisen.

ADH refuses to take another matter in hand.

I'm not going to pontificate about masturbation. I believe that a habit of masturbation can
induce a kind of psychological dependence on the fantasies that are normally associated
with it, which can thereby become obsessive and interfere with normal interaction with
other people. This kind of dependence is obviously unhealthy, from a psychological,
social and emotional point of view.

Sex. Any sort of sex, relies on exactly the same fantasies found in masturbation. If it
doesn't you are doing something terribly wrong. Sharing and indulging fantasies
between partners is vitally important; as is maintaining your own. The only times the
'habit' of masturbation can interfere with 'the normal interaction with other people' is if
you are doing it on the high street during rush hour or you start every conversation with 'I
jerked it while thinking of you.' Like anything else, masturbation can be abused.
Alcohol, drugs, masturbation, excuses for why your god's will predates reciprocal altruism in other cultures; any
of these, taken to the extreme can be obviously unhealthy from a psychological, social
and emotional point of view.

The Bible has nothing to say about masturbation per se, but it has a lot to
say about self-centred indulgence, about directing our minds and our energies towards the
well-being of the "other". Masturbation is wrong in so far as it inclines us against this
thought pattern.

Well Onan is usually the 'plunking the magic twanger offends god,' story. It is the
passage, or non-use of a passage, that is called to mind. Of course that is all secondary
after Saul of Tarsus and the understanding that keeping the Law (the warning of Onan) is
no longer required. You can spank your monkey blue provided that you sincerely accept
the death and resurrection of Jesus as payment for your sins; you can even spank your
monkey while sincerely accepting the death and resurrection of Jesus as payment for your
sins. You will feel closer to Jesus, and strangely enough, Mel Gibson, through his film
'The Passion of the Christ.'

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you can be considered good bedroom, dungeon, up against the wall outside the pub advice. Everyone gets their happy ending!

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

432. Comment #110355 by irate_atheist on January 11, 2008 at 3:28 am

422. Comment #110332 by ADH -

Roger, you will notice that I said "A HABIT OF MASTURBATION"

Are you referring to nuns?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

433. Comment #110356 by Tyler Durden on January 11, 2008 at 3:36 am

Comment by ADH:

I'm not going to pontificate about masturbation. I believe that a habit of masturbation can induce a kind of psychological dependence on the fantasies that are normally associated with it... This kind of dependence is obviously unhealthy, from a psychological, social and emotional point of view.

As a student of psychology, I'd be very interested in some of the reasons masturbating is "obviously unhealthy from a psychological point of view."

ADH, do you have any research, evidence, studies, or peer reviewed papers to back this statement up with?

If it's so obvious, you should have no problems supplying pertinent references, thanks.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

434. Comment #110358 by Peacebeuponme on January 11, 2008 at 3:42 am

Oh come on, Tyler Durden! Surely it is obvious, expecicially when you consider

the fantasies that are normally associated with it

All those sordid sexual scenarios we think about when knocking one off. Heavens forbid you'd actually think about s.e.x. during a bout of solo-love.

Maybe ADHs fantasies are something for concern?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

435. Comment #110359 by irate_atheist on January 11, 2008 at 3:44 am

437. Comment #110356 by Tyler Durden -

If it's so obvious, you should have no problems supplying pertinent references, thanks.

Ah, but, you see, because it's so obvious, there aren't any...a bit like why it's so obvious there's a god and he's good.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

436. Comment #110366 by Philip1978 on January 11, 2008 at 4:00 am

Forgive the sarcasm but I think one word needs changing in that sentence:

I'm not going to pontificate about religion. I believe that a habit of religion can induce a kind of psychological dependence on the fantasies that are normally associated with it... This kind of dependence is obviously unhealthy, from a psychological, social and emotional point of view.

There, thats much better! :)

Its only sex ADH, nothing to get worried about. It would be more worrying if people started to derive their sexual fantasies from Deuteronomy or Book of Judges.

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

437. Comment #110368 by Galactor on January 11, 2008 at 4:02 am

Comment #110354 by The Reverend Dark

Sex. Any sort of sex, relies on exactly the same fantasies found in masturbation. If it doesn't you are doing something terribly wrong.

Are you seriously telling me that I have to think about the washing up, picking the kids up from school AND England while I masturbate?

Other Comments by Galactor

438. Comment #110369 by irate_atheist on January 11, 2008 at 4:03 am

440. Comment #110366 by Philip1978 -

Or to directly amend the original with the minimum of hassle, simply remove the word 'not'.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

439. Comment #110372 by Galactor on January 11, 2008 at 4:08 am

The Bible has nothing to say about masturbation per se ...

I'm no authority on the baabull but isn't there some mention of "spilling seed" alluding to masturbation being wasteful and sinful? I think that's why they used to make us all wear boxing gloves at night and I conclude that masturbation is biblically acceptable for women but not for men.

Any thoughts from our more biblically educated forum *members* (ooh er, missus, pardon the pun)?

Other Comments by Galactor

440. Comment #110373 by ADH on January 11, 2008 at 4:10 am

Just to clear something up. I didn't say masturbation was wrong per se. I don't think it is. Onan's sin was not masturbation but failing to do his duty as the one who had to continue the geneological line. I'm saying that it is wrong if it contributes to self-indulgence, to obsession with self. We have become a very "self-ward" looking society, a society of self-engrossed individuals. Masturbation could well be in integral part of that behaviour pattern. It's not the only one, of course. And in itself it's no big deal. I have no problem with sexual fantasies involving one's lifelong partner. The proplems arise when your fantasies centring around another person are simultaneous with indifference towards your husband/wife. OK, I'm a conservative when it comes to faithfulness, commitment to one person etc. I don't need to make any apologies for that do I?

Other Comments by ADH

441. Comment #110374 by Steve Zara on January 11, 2008 at 4:14 am

I have no problem with sexual fantasies involving one's lifelong partner. The proplems arise when your fantasies centring around another person are simultaneous with indifference towards your husband/wife. OK, I'm a conservative when it comes to faithfulness, commitment to one person etc. I don't need to make any apologies for that do I?

Well, all I would say is that if you post on a site full of people who question just about anything, if you say anything along the lines of "the problems arise", you can bet someone is going to ask.... why?

However, I am not really that interested myself unless there is a religious connection.

Like this:

Onan's sin was not masturbation but failing to do his duty as the one who had to continue the geneological line.

In our overpopulated world, not carrying on your line is positively moral. So why was that a "sin"?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

442. Comment #110381 by ADH on January 11, 2008 at 4:48 am

Steve, it was wrong in his case. THis is an explanation which I found online. It more or less sums up what Onan's problem was:

"The death of Er (see note 1 below) without a son makes Onan subject to what is called the levirate law (note 2). Although the law isn't specifically mentioned until much later in Deuteronomy 25:5, it was very ancient, predating the point at which the Pentateuch was written down (note 3).

Marrying your brother's wife is forbidden in biblical law, specifically Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21. However, there is an exception if your brother dies without having had a son. In that case, a man is obligated to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law to give his dead brother a son, who becomes the brother's heir. Deuteronomy 25:5-10 describes a way for the brother to decline this responsibility, but presumably at the time of the story of Onan, that legal mechanism wasn't known.

Today levirate marriages are rare. Traditional Ashkenazic Jews faced with a brother who's married, childless, and dead use the Deuteronomic ritual to get out of it. Most Reform and Conservative Jews ignore it altogether. Among Sephardic Jews, one still finds an occasional levirate marriage.

Back to the story. Having no legal means of avoiding his brotherly duty, Onan flatly refuses to do it. He doesn't object to sex with his brother's wife; he just doesn't want to get her with child. We don't know why except that the child "would not count as his." Perhaps he lacked a sense of responsibility to the dead. Perhaps he realized that, with Er dead, he would get half his father's estate, but if Er had an heir, he would only get one-third. So he spilled his seed on the ground. The question is: what exactly does this mean? Religious leaders have advanced different interpretations over the centuries, mostly to justify societal mores.

It's often difficult to establishing what sex practices various writers meant because they used euphemisms--there wasn't a technical sexual vocabulary until fairly recently. Also, the authors of commentaries didn't want to give readers ideas by being too explicit--the "above all, don't put beans in your ear!" syndrome.

The earliest interpretations were straightforward. What Onan had done was dishonor his dead brother and shirk his obligations. Exactly how he frustrated the purpose of levirate marriage was irrelevant. The text emphasizes the social or legal setting, with Judah describing what Onan has to do and why. The plain reading is that Onan's sin was refusal to provide his dead brother with an heir."

Other Comments by ADH

443. Comment #110382 by Tyler Durden on January 11, 2008 at 4:50 am

Comment by ADH:

I have no problem with sexual fantasies involving one's lifelong partner.

But I'm single - so who do you suggest I fantasize about while masturbating?

Plus, I don't want to have children - am I too "failing to do his duty as the one who had to continue the geneological line"?

The proplems arise when your fantasies centring around another person are simultaneous with indifference towards your husband/wife.

Problems? Problems are when you physically do something about it, fantasies are called fantasies for a reason - they're only fantasies. It's called life! Live a little...

Then again, no "being" can see or know what I fantasize about - ADH, are you afraid your god can see and read your thoughts? Isn't that a tad intrusive?

Any chance you could answer my query from comment #437, thanks!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

444. Comment #110388 by irate_atheist on January 11, 2008 at 5:03 am

446. Comment #110381 by ADH -

However, there is an exception if your brother dies without having had a son. In that case, a man is obligated to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law to give his dead brother a son, who becomes the brother's heir. Deuteronomy 25:5-10 describes a way for the brother to decline this responsibility, but presumably at the time of the story of Onan, that legal mechanism wasn't known. - ADH

...The question is: what exactly does this mean? Religious leaders have advanced different interpretations over the centuries, mostly to justify societal mores.

It's often difficult to establishing what sex practices various writers meant because they used euphemisms--there wasn't a technical sexual vocabulary until fairly recently. Also, the authors of commentaries didn't want to give readers ideas by being too explicit--the "above all, don't put beans in your ear!" syndrome.

The earliest interpretations were straightforward... -ADH

As ever, we come to the only logical and reasonable conlusion based on the evidence placed before us:

Thus the mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still less can they hope to tell us the "meaning" of later discoveries and developments which were, when they began, either obstructed by their religions or denounced by them. And yet—the believers still claim to know! - Christopher Hitchens

Other Comments by irate_atheist

445. Comment #110389 by Paula Kirby on January 11, 2008 at 5:05 am

ADH,: The proplems arise when your fantasies centring around another person are simultaneous with indifference towards your husband/wife.

What you have done here is the equivalent of starting off by saying that we shouldn't eat stewed fruit because it is bad for us, and then conceding that, in fact, it's only ACTUALLY bad for us if eaten with great big dollops of ice-cream.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

446. Comment #110393 by ADH on January 11, 2008 at 5:33 am

Can we call a truce on masturbation? I have said that it's no big deal. I insist that it's no big deal. I think excess is socially unhealthy, as any kind of exess is socially unhealthy. There are bigger issues at stake here. This masturbation thing has become a distractor.

MPhil, you have made some interesting points and I'll be getting back to you.

Steve, you have commented on apparent moral behaviour in animals such as great apes. I don't know. In line with my post the other day, I'm not sure of the actual status that other creatures have vis à vis their Creator. Maybe there is a kind of possiblity of moral choice on their part, in proportion to their cognitive and rational abilities. I can't pronounce one way or the other as it is something I don't know enough about. My conviction is that, in whatever case, the capacity for moral choice, and the power of verbal reasoning, is not of natualistic origin. Insofar as we can make moral choices, we are responsible for the choices we make. I am also convinced that the reductionism whereby our moral categories are viewed as biochemical, neurological "objects" located in the brain is lethal to the possibility of maintaining any kind of consensus with regard to what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.

Someone earlier established our emotion as the criterion. Surely you can all see that this is entirely inadequate. That subjectivises morality to the point where the main criterion for action (or non-action) is "if it feels good, do it". One man's (or woman's) beer is another's poison.

I mentioned the film Matchpoint some time ago. Chris Wilton, having married into money and guaranteed success, is told by his "girlfriend" that she is pregnant. She pleads with him to leave his wife and be a proper father to the child. He pleads with her to have an abortion. But she refuses. As it is not possible to consult the disempowered foetus it is not possible to know whether it would have been a 2 to 1 vote in favour or against! "I expect you to o the right thing, Chris" she says. "I will do the right thing" he promises. But it is quite a dilemma. What is the right thing? In the end he "feels" that the only way out is to take the matter of dispensing with the child into his own hands, and dispensing with the mother into the bargain. He shoots his girlfriend and the unborn child, having set everything up to make it look as if Nola had been an unlucky bystander in another murder and burglary. (He had killed Nola's next door neighbour before killing Nola and the child). Later, the "ghost" of Nola appears to him in the middle of the night. "I hope I am caught" he says to her "It would be one small hint o justice and meaning in the world". But time passes and the case is closed. "Evidence" has been found which supposedly incriminates another person - with a criminal record. Chris settls into his life of luxury with his rich family. He acted in accordance with his subjective feeling that comfort was better than discomfort, whatever the price. Did Chris do the right thing? On a purely subjectivist criterion, is there such a thing as "justice" in the world?

Other Comments by ADH

447. Comment #110394 by Incredulous on January 11, 2008 at 5:35 am

OK, I'm a conservative when it comes to faithfulness, commitment to one person etc. I don't need to make any apologies for that do I?

Absolutely not. But do I have to kow tow to your opinions?

Religious leaders have advanced different interpretations over the centuries, mostly to justify societal mores. ... The earliest interpretations were straightforward... -ADH

ADH and you wonder why everyone jumps on the confused ideas perpetrated by creationists.

The proplems arise when your fantasies centring around another person are simultaneous with indifference towards your husband/wife.

It seems to me the problems arise when your partner finds out your fantasies centring around another person are simultaneous with indifference towards him/her.

For he/she can be a jealous partner.

Other Comments by Incredulous

448. Comment #110396 by The Reverend Dark on January 11, 2008 at 5:37 am

Galactor writes

Are you seriously telling me that I have to think about the washing up, picking the kids up from school AND England while I masturbate?

Rule Brittania baby! Rule Brittania! You may be halfway there already, as like Admiral Lord Nelson himself, you are probably doing so with one arm.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

449. Comment #110397 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 5:41 am

Comment #110393 by ADH

I mentioned the film Matchpoint some time ago....

But time passes and the case is closed. "Evidence" has been found which supposedly incriminates another person - with a criminal record. Chris settls into his life of luxury with his rich family. He acted in accordance with his subjective feeling that comfort was better than discomfort, whatever the price. Did Chris do the right thing? On a purely subjectivist criterion, is there such a thing as "justice" in the world?

So given that there is a completely objective morality in the world that you are privy to, then what would you do?

EDIT: your answer must be both timeless and unambiguous.

Other Comments by epeeist

450. Comment #110400 by Tyler Durden on January 11, 2008 at 5:46 am

Comment by ADH:

OK, I'm a conservative when it comes to faithfulness, commitment to one person etc. I don't need to make any apologies for that do I?

Absolutely not, your life is your own, feel free to do whatever you like - but please do not make gross generalisations on behalf of humanity based on your moral guidelines.

And from a psychological point of view, I find it interesting that you somehow equate sexual fantasy with revoking your "faithfulness" and "commitment" with a lifelong partner. Why would you think that?

Also, can you answer queries in my comment #437, thanks!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden