Homophobia causes the problems, not homosexuality

[Ingledsva]

This from an LDS member, whose church has historically embraced polygamy? Or is "one man and one woman" a term of art in this case?

Your historical revisionism also ignores the June 29, 2008 letter that came "from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations," in which the presidency implored members to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time." The same letter states that "[l]ocal Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause."

I was living in California at the time, and everyone was well aware of how many Mormon footsoldiers were on the ground pushing for passage of the amendment. That's in addition to the member donations that rolled in from individual LDS members; according to figures published at the time, 45 percent of out of state donations in support of Prop 8 came from Utah, representing over 1.5 million in anti-gay contributions.

Who said that Mormons were good on projecting returns on investment? Six years later, we have marriage equality in Utah and Idaho. Nevertheless, only an idiot would ignore the outsized influence of the acolytes of Joseph Smith.

Have no fear: Plenty of liberals are soft on the Saints, if at least some outliers are trotted out as examples of tolerance and post-Copernican reasoning skills, as this thread demonstrates, and will even implicitly defend belief in the wholly indefensible claims of Smith and his successors.

I think churches that become involved in politics should lose their tax-free status. And yes, that includes telling church people to vote for or against something, or for or against a particular person.


*

 

[Vigilans]

And I will ask AGAIN - where does the Bible say that?

It doesn't!


*

Where does it say what?

I read this on the internet which means it's true:

"Genesis 38 is the only time that masturbation is even mentioned, and Onan wasn't even punished for masturbating. He was punished for disobeying God."

Yes, Onan was punished for disobeying God. His disobedience consisted of spilling his seed when God told him not to. The sacred tradition is that it's still disobedient to spill one's seed.

 

[gsa]

I read this on the internet which means it's true:

"Genesis 38 is the only time that masturbation is even mentioned, and Onan wasn't even punished for masturbating. He was punished for disobeying God."

In fact, masturbation is not mentioned at all in Genesis 38. In Gen 38:8, Judah directs Onan to go to his brother's wife and Onan, knowing that the offspring of the union would not be his, "went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother," which was the specific action that was "displeasing in the sight of the Lord." See Gen 38:9-10.

It is extremely improbable that this was a condemnation of masturbation, if only because the emission of semen is regulated elsewhere, in Leviticus 15:16-17, and is not expressly prohibited, although it is ritually unclean. The problem with Onan is coitus interruptus, and then only within the context of actually intending to frustrating a levirate marriage.

The condemnation has no firm scriptural basis. The citation to Corinthians is particularly amusing, because the term "sexual perverts" in the RSV is created by deliberately mistranslating malakos and arsenokoitēs, which are translated in other editions to condemn the effeminate or "abusers of themselves with mankind/homosexuals," which goes to show how deceptive Christian translations of their texts often are.

 

[Vigilans]

Can everybody please consider that lust is a cardinal sin. It's true that masturbation isn't discussed at length in the Bible. Lust, on the other hand, is condemned regularly. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to say that masturbation is an expression of lust. There's only you, and it's solely for erotic pleasure. Sex is there to be enjoyed, but it ought to be reserved for marriage. I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. Christians have had a couple of thousand years to reflect on this.

 

[Ingledsva]

Genesis 38 - Onan is punished for spilling his seed.
John 7:53-8:11 - Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. He prevents her from being stoned and says "go, and do not sin again."
I Corinthians 6:9 - St. Paul says "Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you."

These words are taken from the Revised Standard Version.

Onan was not killed for masturbation.

Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry (YABAM) her, and raise up seed (an heir) to thy brother.

Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed (heir) should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed (an heir) to his brother.

Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

He was killed for not performing a Sacred duty (LAW YABAM) to provide an heir for his brother Er.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

In fact, masturbation is not mentioned at all in Genesis 38. In Gen 38:8, Judah directs Onan to go to his brother's wife and Onan, knowing that the offspring of the union would not be his, "went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother," which was the specific action that was "displeasing in the sight of the Lord." See Gen 38:9-10.

It is extremely improbable that this was a condemnation of masturbation, if only because the emission of semen is regulated elsewhere, in Leviticus 15:16-17, and is not expressly prohibited, although it is ritually unclean. The problem with Onan is coitus interruptus, and then only within the context of actually intending to frustrating a levirate marriage.

The condemnation has no firm scriptural basis. The citation to Corinthians is particularly amusing, because the term "sexual perverts" in the RSV is created by deliberately mistranslating malakos and arsenokoitēs, which are translated in other editions to condemn the effeminate or "abusers of themselves with mankind/homosexuals," which goes to show how deceptive Christian translations of their texts often are.

Malakos and arsenokoites have nothing to do with homosexuals.

*

 

[Vigilans]

I think the one thing that you're all failing to appreciate is that I'm not an American Protestant. I believe that sacred tradition supplements the scripture. Not all truth is contained in the Bible. Given the passage from the First Epistle to the Corinthians et al. do you really think that masturbation was condoned? I perfectly understand that none of you agree that masturbation is wrong. I do think it's a mistake to suggest that it's not a Christian position though. Can anyone give me a good defence of masturbation from scripture or sacred tradition?

 

[gsa]

Can everybody please consider that lust is a cardinal sin. It's true that masturbation isn't discussed at length in the Bible. Lust, on the other hand, is condemned regularly. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to say that masturbation is an expression of lust. There's only you, and it's solely for erotic pleasure. Sex is there to be enjoyed, but it ought to be reserved for marriage. I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. Christians have had a couple of thousand years to reflect on this.

Now that the passages cited have been undermined as a source for the prohibition on masturbation, you turn to the abstract Christian concept of "lust," also divorced from its biblical context and term, the Greek epithumeo, to suggest that masturbation is inherently prohibited because any experience of sexual desire is prohibited. I think it is highly unlikely it has the Puritanical or Victorian meaning you have attributed to it; it almost certainly means something along the lines of envious coveting of another man's "possession" or alternatively an all-consuming, intemperate desire.

Again, you can cite to tradition all that you want (as a Catholic that's really your guide anyway) but don't confuse it with the fruits of biblical criticism.

 

[Uberpod]

Stop masturbating in the gay thread !!

 

[gsa]

Malakos and arsenokoites have nothing to do with homosexuals.

*

Well it may have something to do with them, it is next to impossible to tell because the usage of malakos is so variable and arsenokoites is a manufactured term that is used to mean a variety of different things. I was just noting the irony that the Revised Standard Version collapses the two words into "sexual perverts" as though that is self-evidently inclusive of every conceivable "bad" form of sexual activity, including masturbation.

 

[Vigilans]

Stop masturbating in the gay thread !!

You started this Uberpod! Now look what's happened! Seriously though, there's too many posts coming my way to deal with on my own.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I think the one thing that you're all failing to appreciate is that I'm not an American Protestant. I believe that sacred tradition supplements the scripture. Not all truth is contained in the Bible. Given the passage from the First Epistle to the Corinthians et al. do you really think that masturbation was condoned? I perfectly understand that none of you agree that masturbation is wrong. I do think it's a mistake to suggest that it's not a Christian position though. Can anyone give me a good defence of masturbation from scripture or sacred tradition?

There is no way to show you that the Catholic Church thinks highly of masturbation but simply that the basis for the Church and subsequently, your own problems with it are explained away. "The bible says so" doesn't even quite cut it. Its now "the church said so because whatever" is your current position and no one can take that from you.

 

[Uberpod]

You started this Uberpod! Now look what's happened! Seriously though, there's too many posts coming my way to deal with on my own.

Too many responses to masturbation? Sounds like you may need me to lend a hand?

 

[Vigilans]

Too many responses to masturbation? Sounds like you may need me to lend a hand?

 

[gsa]

Seriously though, there's too many posts coming my way to deal with on my own.

He who defends things both absurd and injurious to human flourishing should be prepared to do so, particularly if he is defending it on the basis of "sacred scripture" that is being used as a grounds for critique. I wouldn't particularly care if there was clear grounds for condemning masturbation in the bible, since things like science and human experience demonstrate that any such prohibition is absurd. But if you are going to use "sacred scripture" to defy common sense, you should be prepared to defend your interpretation of said scripture.

 

[Ingledsva]

I think the one thing that you're all failing to appreciate is that I'm not an American Protestant. I believe that sacred tradition supplements the scripture. Not all truth is contained in the Bible. Given the passage from the First Epistle to the Corinthians et al. do you really think that masturbation was condoned? I perfectly understand that none of you agree that masturbation is wrong. I do think it's a mistake to suggest that it's not a Christian position though. Can anyone give me a good defence of masturbation from scripture or sacred tradition?

LOL! Can anyone give me a give me a good defense of foreplay from scripture...?

You have already been told it helps in certain areas of men's health.

And there you have it! You are a believer in the traditions of man, - rather then the Bible!

The Bible says nothing about masturbation. Which is good, as seed is spilled with every experience of foreplay.

Sorry to be graphic - but - every time you withdraw the penis, semen is also spilled.

Such a rule would be truly stupid as it takes only one sperm, and the rest die, run out, etc.

*

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I remember as a child the priest saying "Masturbation will make you go blind!" He was a bit short-sighted come to think of it.

 

[Vigilans]

It's not absurd. 'Injurious to human flourishing' is a fluffy and subjective phrase. There is a sound scriptural basis for the condemnation of masturbation. Your argument is, I looked at Genesis 38 and God didn't shout "stop w*****g everybody." Both Jews and Christians have considered it to be about the spilling of a man's seed. Yes, Onan spilled his seed as a result of coitus interruptus. But to suggest the inference that masturbation too is sinful, on this same basis, is an intellectually dishonest leap, is itself dishonest.

 

[Revoltingest]

You started this Uberpod! Now look what's happened! Seriously though, there's too many posts coming my way to deal with on my own.

The problem is that this thread is about a secular issue, so there will be heathens & many different kinds of faiths here. Lust (straight & gay) & attendant activities find wide philosophical & religious acceptance, so you're in the minority, which can be uncomfortable.
I know what it's like to have a minority view, & be overwhelmed....I'll look up & see that I've a dozen alerts to address. Criminy! This place can get hectic!
Btw, the POOP (Pamphlet Of Original Parables) of Revoltingistan is pro-gay, pro-lust, & pretty much pro-everything libertarian. That gets me into some hot water around here at times.

 

[Midnight Rain]

There is some evidence to suggest that the basis of the anti-maturation Hebrew tradition is with the need for a higher population and masturbation was seen as wasteful for the expansion of their tribe.